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

[wyly]

Good point. linky

ya we have to worry about china stealing some ice...a f35 to stop a icebreaker oh please, that could be done with a cessna and a rocket launcher...

[YEGmann]

Neither you or I, or even the military for that matter, can say that for sure precisely because there was no bid. If there was an open bid process and it was clear which plane best suits our needs for the next 30-40 years, I'd believe it. There wasn't however.

Please, do not spread your ignorance on thousands of people. Professionals in the aerospace industry know very well what is going on. A bid for F-35 will be a waste. The only possible contender, X-32, lost long time ago. "Anything else just doesn't measure up!"

And exacly to be best prepared for future challenges we need today's most advanced weapons. That's what history teaches us.

[YEGmann]

a lot of countries have RCS to varying degrees, the europeans, chinese, India, russia and the russians newest planes have L-band radar which eliminates the RCS advantage, RCS works on x-band., and the planes will be operational before the first F35 is even delivered to canada, so what we'll have is a ridiculously expensive plane that has ineffective stealth ability...might as well buy a superhornetthe USA DOD is saying it will cost 118-130 million but you know more than they do right? a super hornet is about 60-80 mill, a rafale anbout 60-70 mill

yup, forget the expensive war toys...

You probably read too much of Carlo Kopp. You are missing the point. A low observable aircraft is not invisible. You can see it even with L-band radar, but it is almost impossible to lock on an anti-aircraft missile on it. Because of the missile size. This gives a tremendous advantge in air combat. This saves our pilot lives. No plane on the market is even close to F-35. Forget about Russia, China, India having a similar aircraft operational in any near future (10 - 15 years).

This quality justifies 100-million price vs 70 million of any existing fourth generation fighter. I would call 80 million for a Super Hornet much more ridiculous price.

Neither multi-role aircraft does something exceptionaly well. We cannot afford several types of specialized fighter jets.

[DogOnPorch]

We cannot afford several types of specialized fighter jets.

Probably quite right in Canada's case. However, I do think Canada could use a dedicated prop driven ground attack aircraft such as the ol' Sky Raider or even the Brazilian Tucano. Bombardier could even design and build it.

Edited October 22, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Smallc]

Probably quite right in Canada's case. However, I do think Canada could use a dedicated prop driven ground attack aircraft such as the ol' Sky Raider or even the Brazilian Tucano. Bombardier could probably even design and build it.

I don't know, I think that we might be better served by an attack helicopter, like Australia just got.

[DogOnPorch]

I don't know, I think that we might be better served by an attack helicopter, like Australia just got.

Those are handy too...and needed in places like Laughganistan. However, dedicated prop driven aircraft that can haul a heavy load with plenty of firepower would be ideal for Canada's airstrike needs against what amounts to partisan forces. Aircraft would also be much cheaper and easier to maintain than any helicopter.

Example, now retired: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider

[Wilber]

Those are handy too...and needed in places like Laughganistan. However, dedicated prop driven aircraft that can haul a heavy load with plenty of firepower would be ideal for Canada's airstrike needs against what amounts to partisan forces. Aircraft would also be much cheaper and easier to maintain than any helicopter.

Example, now retired: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider

One downside to them is they require runways. Certainly cheaper though.

[DogOnPorch]

One downside to them is they require runways. Certainly cheaper though.

Indeed...although that's not often a problem in most theaters. A big advantage of prop aircraft is the time-on-station a craft like the Sky Raider or Trojan could spend...'til the ammo runs dry. The disadvantage, however, being the plane being an easier target for small arms. Since the IL-2 Sturmovik and Hs-129, the solution to this problem has been heavy belly armor and redundant systems.

Edited October 22, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You want ground support, go Warthog. Fairchild A 10 all the freaking way.

[DogOnPorch]

You want ground support, go Warthog. Fairchild A 10 all the freaking way.

I'm very aware of its capabilities, but it is a jet where I was thinking of cheap, capable propeller driven machines that could do the same role.

[bush_cheney2004]

You want ground support, go Warthog. Fairchild A 10 all the freaking way.

Fairchild-Dornier is long gone....where are you going to get them (new)??? Boeing is producing new wings for the A-10 SLEP...not new airframes.

[Wilber]

Indeed...although that's not often a problem in most theaters. A big advantage of prop aircraft is the time-on-station a craft like the Sky Raider or Trojan could spend...'til the ammo runs dry. The disadvantage, however, being the plane being an easier target for small arms. Since the IL-2 Sturmovik and Hs-129, the solution to this problem has been heavy belly armor and redundant systems.

Some other disadvantages. Parts availability for these old aircraft, particularly the Wright 3350 engines. Having to find and keep a supply of 115/145 avgas to feed them unless they could be modified to run on 100 LL. One thing about turbines, you can also use Jet A in your diesel powered ground equipment if necessary.

[DogOnPorch]

Some other disadvantages. Parts availability for these old aircraft, particularly the Wright 3350 engines. Having to find and keep a supply of 115/145 avgas to feed them unless they could be modified to run on 100 LL. One thing about turbines, you can also use Jet A in your diesel powered ground equipment if necessary.

I totally agreed...plus, I'm not suggesting that Canada should buy old Sky Raiders or Trojans. I earlier mentioned Bombardier could design and produce a modern version which would be well within their capabilities with regards to their experience with turbo-prop designs. A few billion in that direction might produce interesting fruit...

[Wilber]

If you just want something for anti insurgency, how about the AT6-B

Edited October 22, 2010 by Wilber

[wyly]

You probably read too much of Carlo Kopp. You are missing the point. A low observable aircraft is not invisible. You can see it even with L-band radar, but it is almost impossible to lock on an anti-aircraft missile on it. Because of the missile size. This gives a tremendous advantge in air combat. This saves our pilot lives. No plane on the market is even close to F-35. Forget about Russia, China, India having a similar aircraft operational in any near future (10 - 15 years).

never heard of carlo...L band will detect the craft, lock on comes with IR and OLS

no plane comes close to the F-35? there is an american aif force general who has flown both the F22 and the Euro Typhoon and he claims they are equal...so that would make the Typhoon superior to the F-35

the russian/indian new stealth su t50 is already in testing phase and goes into production in 2015-16 and it will be superior to the f35 equal or better than the F22, so all that money wasted on a plane to combat those imperialist ruskies will have been wasted...

This quality justifies 100-million price vs 70 million of any existing fourth generation fighter. I would call 80 million for a Super Hornet much more ridiculous price.

it's good enough for aging russian bombers and chinese ice breakers...money saved can go to specialized ground support aircraft, helicopters, transport, maybe even an polar ice breaker

Neither multi-role aircraft does something exceptionaly well. We cannot afford several types of specialized fighter jets.

we can if we don't waste money for uber technology on planes that will be neutralized by new technology even before we take possesion...

[PIK]

Neither you or I, or even the military for that matter, can say that for sure precisely because there was no bid. If there was an open bid process and it was clear which plane best suits our needs for the next 30-40 years, I'd believe it. There wasn't however.

My understanding is the call went out from the liberals and 2 companies came up with something,the x-32 and 35.

[Wild Bill]

No. The US defense department did. Lockheed won the American contract. We just decided to buy what the Americans bought. Are the F-35s right for Canada? They might be. The point is we can't know for sure unless there's an open tendered process.

To be fair, if we had decided the F35 was the plane for us we had no choice but to wait to see if the Americans would commit first!

The plane would never have been built based on the size of order that Canada could place. It would be just too small.

[wyly]

Even in L-band detection of the 5th gen fighter is on shorter distances. On realy long ranges you need longer wave length radars. Their antennas cannot fit aircraft. IR and OLS can help but again it is practically a visual range and lesser chances of detection from the front of the aircraft, i.e., typical initial phase of the fight.

my research tells me OLS with IR on the Su 35's has an estimated range of detection of 150Km and has no issues detecting stealth planes...effective range of F22 missiles 30-45km...the stealth planes will be detected well before they are within range...stealth will be useless unless it's used against third world countries with old equipment, it'll be a colossal waste of money...the Typhoon for the same money would be a better choice than the F35, if you're going to be seen anyways at least have a better plane...but as we'll never be battling the chinese, indians or russians save a lot of money and buy a super hornet...

The Russian PAK FA (T-50) is not a fighter jet. It is a flying object to calm Russian public asking where billions of dollars went on their 5th gen fighter. Its another purpose is to draw tens of billions of dollars from third world countries for the right to participate in a never ending process of designing this technical marvel.

You may relax. Russia won't have a true 5th gen aircraft in 2015, in 2020 either... I know, it doesn't make sense to discuss the T-50, but I want to remind you, that Russians already admitted they cannot design and built an aircraft comparable to F-22. By the way, the price of a "series production" T-50 is discussed in the range of $100 mln - $150 mln.

if you tell yourself that a thousand times may will start to believe it, no doubt you already have...history is full military leaders who made the fatal error of underestimating the opponent and believing their own hype...

[YEGmann]

never heard of carlo...L band will detect the craft, lock on comes with IR and OLS

no plane comes close to the F-35? there is an american aif force general who has flown both the F22 and the Euro Typhoon and he claims they are equal...so that would make the Typhoon superior to the F-35

the russian/indian new stealth su t50 is already in testing phase and goes into production in 2015-16 and it will be superior to the f35 equal or better than the F22, so all that money wasted on a plane to combat those imperialist ruskies will have been wasted...

Carlo Kopp is an australian crusader against F-35.

Even in L-band detection of the 5th gen fighter is on shorter distances. On realy long ranges you need longer wave length radars. Their antennas cannot fit aircraft. IR and OLS can help but again it is practically a visual range and lesser chances of detection from the front of the aircraft, i.e., typical initial phase of the fight.

I would not accept the claim about superiority of the Eurofighter over F-22 (let them bring the EF to the Red Flag!), but agree it can outmaneuver the F-35. However for EF to score, it must approach F-35 very close. Chances are high that the EF will be shot down well before it even detects the F-35. And prices for EF are skyrocket too.

The Russian PAK FA (T-50) is not a fighter jet. It is a flying object to calm Russian public asking where billions of dollars went on their 5th gen fighter. Its another purpose is to draw tens of billions of dollars from third world countries for the right to participate in a never ending process of designing this technical marvel.

You may relax. Russia won't have a true 5th gen aircraft in 2015, in 2020 either... I know, it doesn't make sense to discuss the T-50, but I want to remind you, that Russians already admitted they cannot design and built an aircraft comparable to F-22. By the way, the price of a "series production" T-50 is discussed in the range of $100 mln - $150 mln.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Even in L-band detection of the 5th gen fighter is on shorter distances. On realy long ranges you need longer wave length radars. Their antennas cannot fit aircraft. IR and OLS can help but again it is practically a visual range and lesser chances of detection from the front of the aircraft, i.e., typical initial phase of the fight.

Ahhh....how refreshing. Radar aperture counts, and synthetic (SAR) won't get the job done. Try the rest..then buy the best.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I still think we need to rethink from sea to sea to sea, then design a force composition to DEFEND the nation. After that we can look at doing some international stuff but we have to have some freaking priorities!

[nicky10013]

My understanding is the call went out from the liberals and 2 companies came up with something,the x-32 and 35.

No. The US defense department did. Lockheed won the American contract. We just decided to buy what the Americans bought. Are the F-35s right for Canada? They might be. The point is we can't know for sure unless there's an open tendered process.

[YEGmann]

my research tells me OLS with IR on the Su 35's has an estimated range of detection of 150Km and has no issues detecting stealth planes...effective range of F22 missiles 30-45km...the stealth planes will be detected well before they are within range...stealth will be useless unless it's used against third world countries with old equipment, it'll be a colossal waste of money...the Typhoon for the same money would be a better choice than the F35, if you're going to be seen anyways at least have a better plane...but as we'll never be battling the chinese, indians or russians save a lot of money and buy a super hornet...

if you tell yourself that a thousand times may will start to believe it, no doubt you already have...history is full military leaders who made the fatal error of underestimating the opponent and believing their own hype...

Your research on Su-35's OLS (the same will be installed on the future T-50) looks strange. The manufacturer of the OLS gives much smaller range of detection: 70 km from the rear and 40 km from the front of the detected aircraft.

http://www.uomz.ru/index.php?page=products&pid=100175

Somehow no range presented in an English version: http://www.uomz.ru/eng/index.php?page=products&pid=100064

I can assure you that these data are obtained for probability of detection 50% (in the West something about 90% is used) in the ideal condition (clear sky - no fog, no clouds, not stealthy target) on a device thoroughly adjusted and calibrated by the OEM engineers before the test (which is a big problem with hi-tech equipment in-field in the Russian Air Force).

As for the TV channel in the OLS-35, insiders say its range of detection is 10 - 12 km.

By the way do you know how many Su-35S are in service with the Russian AF? Three or four. All are in a test unit, not in a regular combat unit. Total production of Su-35S is planned 48 aircraft.

That means all data about them are highly mythological.

F-35 will be well equipped. Maximum range of the AIM-120D missile is well over 100 km. No doubt it will be lethal at ranges 50 km and less. Do not forget, that AIM-120 family is combat proven and has an active homing system. Russians have neither on their tactical A-A missile.

Stealth fighter have been demonstrating their unquestionable superiority over conventional aircraft since the first Gulf War. I do not know what is a basis for you admiration of EuroFighter. Bring it to the Red Flag excersise and make your claims after. So far Raptors just crushed indian Su-30MKs (which are very similar to Su-35 and better than the existing T-50). In combat F-22 overwhelms any other 4th generation fighter. Why the situation will be different for the pair F-35 - Eurofighter?

My last note is amusement with your logics. It is OK for you (and the opposition) to call for equipping the CF with yesterday's technology (Super Hornets, Typhoons, etc.). This is not underestimating an enemy.

But when I discribe you a real situation in the Russian aerospace industry, which is dully impotent right now, you cry it's underestimating the opponent.

Edited October 23, 2010 by YEGmann

[Jerry J. Fortin]

All bullshit aside, we are barking up the wrong tree. WE need to think carefully about this. There has to be a way to do this, we just need to figure it our.

[bush_cheney2004]

All bullshit aside, we are barking up the wrong tree. WE need to think carefully about this. There has to be a way to do this, we just need to figure it our.

Take your time....