Iggy : I will cancel the F=35

[punked]

Seriously I will say this isn't something I know a lot about BUT I remember a few months ago suggesting our military taking a different direction and go to drones.

However I realize that there really isn't any competition in the area of fighter jets. This isn't building a bridge there is like 4 companies in the whole world who can do this and they are all priced the same. I don't see how this is going to save any money unless don't want fighter jets.

[bush_cheney2004]

Seriously I will say this isn't something I know a lot about BUT I remember a few months ago suggesting our military taking a different direction and go to drones.

Who will build Canada's "drones"? Where is the forward deployment and communications infrastructure? How does Canada continue to meet NATO/NORAD obligations?

...so you are quickly back to the same problems.

[wyly]

Seriously I will say this isn't something I know a lot about BUT I remember a few months ago suggesting our military taking a different direction and go to drones.

However I realize that there really isn't any competition in the area of fighter jets. This isn't building a bridge there is like 4 companies in the whole world who can do this and they are all priced the same. I don't see how this is going to save any money unless don't want fighter jets.

but do we need THIS fighter jet...I recall the main reason we purchased the F18 was because it had twin engines, flying over vast wastelands and open oceans two engines is a smart idea, single engine planes become flying rocks when their engine quits, and pilots have zero survival time floating in the arctic ocean...a second engine can bring the plane and pilot back safely...the F35 is more plane than we need and it's claims of greatness are questionable and likely exaggerated...

and unmanned planes are likely to replace this plane before we get full use of it and it's claimed stealth superiority will be nullified shortly if hasn't been already

Edited October 27, 2010 by wyly

[punked]

Who will build Canada's "drones"? Where is the forward deployment and communications infrastructure? How does Canada continue to meet NATO/NORAD obligations?

...so you are quickly back to the same problems.

Doesn't matter either way I know how this game plays out. Conservatives spend a bunch of time getting a deal on planes they lock in a price which seems crazy. Liberals get into office on promise to cancel contract, they do but the bid out find out there is only two bids the lowest one now is at 2014 prices instead of 2010 prices it is the same contract we get jets at inflated price.

The Liberals need to stop play politics like it is 1993. We all know what happened, we all remember how well their promises came through. So do they make the same promises now they made then even though they had power for 15 years and none of those promises were delivered on. I remember Canada remembers.

Edited October 27, 2010 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

.....The Liberals need to stop play politics like it is 1993. We all know what happened, we all remember how well their promises came through. So do they make the same promises now they made then even though they had power for 15 years and none of those promises were delivered on. I remember Canada remembers.

It doesn't really matter in the overall scheme of things....remember that little single engine F-16 that Canada rejected because of all the special needs and requirements ? It only went on to be produced at over 4,000 units and 25 nation operators, with higher availability than Canada's "special" CF-18.

There is something about these kind of military procurements that vexes Canada so...and always will.

[punked]

It doesn't really matter in the overall scheme of things....remember that little single engine F-16 that Canada rejected because of all the special needs and requirements ? It only went on to be produced at over 4,000 units and 25 nation operators, with higher availability than Canada's "special" CF-18.

There is something about these kind of military procurements that vexes Canada so...and always will.

You are right. Sigh makes you wonder why we spend all those money on weapons anyway.

[Alta4ever]

good post...yes there are a number of planes that will do the job and motivated sellers, american, brits, german, french, swedish, russian all willing to make a deal...if I had unlimited funds I could buy a Hummer as my everyday vehicle nut I don't so my toyota does the job just fine...

Super Hornet (another 35- 40ish year old airframe) 60 mil per unit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

f-15k - 100 mill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15E_Strike_Eagle

Eurofighter 63 mill euro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

Mitsubishi F-2A (souped up f-16) 127 mill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_F-2

yep our x-35 sure looks price against these 35-40 year old airframes!

The x-35 unit cost (aircraft only no extras) about 100mil http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/26/the-auditor-generals-report/

The price of the f-35 sounds pretty good to me considering it is brand new technology, when you compare it to what it's preprocessors still in production cost.

[YEGmann]

Apparently the liberals have no idea of how Google works. There are three aircraft that fifth generation, the F-22, T-50, and the F-35, of these three only one is available to us for purchase.

Sorry, buddy, a little correction. The T-50 IS NOT a fiftth generation aircraft. Right now it is just a flying piece of metal in shape resembling F-22. It carries no armament, there is no avionics, it flies on old engines. It must pass a long, long way of tests and modifications and maybe by 2025 it will approach the today's characteristics of F-35. And it is for sale right now. Russia tries hard to sell it to India, Brasil and Venesuela (please do not laugh).

[Alta4ever]

Sorry, buddy, a little correction. The T-50 IS NOT a fiftth generation aircraft. Right now it is just a flying piece of metal in shape resembling F-22. It carries no armament, there is no avionics, it flies on old engines. It must pass a long, long way of tests and modifications and maybe by 2025 it will approach the today's characteristics of F-35. And it is for sale right now. Russia tries hard to sell it to India, Brasil and Venesuela (please do not laugh).

You need to take that up with Janes they list it as fifth generation. http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-All-the-Worlds-Aircraft/Sukhoi-T-50-PAKFA-Russian-Federation.html

Not knowing you and having a long history of reading janes, I'll take their research on the subject.

[Moonlight Graham]

Please do not stereotype me. I am by no means a Harper conservative but I believe new fighter jets and up-dating the military are a necessity.

word

[YEGmann]

You need to take that up with Janes they list it as fifth generation. http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-All-the-Worlds-Aircraft/Sukhoi-T-50-PAKFA-Russian-Federation.html

Not knowing you and having a long history of reading janes, I'll take their research on the subject.

Sorry, buddy, you apparently have no idea about the aerospace industry if you refer to the Jane's as a source of reliable information. Do not trust them, trust me (it's a joke).

I do not want to open a technical discussion in a political forum. If you want to have your brain washed - read Jane's. If you want facts - go to professional forums. This is just a friendly advice.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Sorry, buddy, you apparently have no idea about the aerospace industry if you refer to the Jane's as a source of reliable information. Do not trust them, trust me (it's a joke).

I do not want to open a technical discussion in a political forum. If you want to have your brain washed - read Jane's. If you want facts - go to professional forums. This is just a friendly advice.

Dude, Janes is a recognized authority, has been for years.

[Alta4ever]

Sorry, buddy, you apparently have no idea about the aerospace industry if you refer to the Jane's as a source of reliable information. Do not trust them, trust me (it's a joke).

I do not want to open a technical discussion in a political forum. If you want to have your brain washed - read Jane's. If you want facts - go to professional forums. This is just a friendly advice.

Trust you for reliable info on aircraft? Nope I'll go with the renowned authority, rather then internet forums.

[capricorn]

Have you not noticed how they're parsing their words and calling for open competition instead of saying the deal is bad? They're making suggestions, not statements.

I think opposing the F-35 purchase is part of the Liberal strategy to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives. I doubt they really care about the merits of the deal. How many times have we heard pundits say that there is no discernable distinction between the Conservatives and the Liberals. The fact that the Liberals almost always vote with the Conservatives or stay away from a vote to ensure it passes is all the proof needed to confirm this.

Chretien didn't particularly care if people died

I wonder if Chretien ever traveled aboard a Sea King.

[Argus]

There is no need to spend billions on a jet that we don't need. THe contribution for development was so that our aerospace industry can bid on contracts associated with the plane. There is no obligation beyond that and no reason to buy this flying Ferrari.

You want to buy some piece of crap plane that will be outclassed and outdated in ten years? When we make our planes fly for thirty?

[G.P. Lehmann]

Wasn't it the Liberals that originally entered into the F-35 program?

[Saipan]

You are right. Sigh makes you wonder why we spend all those money on weapons anyway.

That's right. If we are in a war we just throw more people at it, like we did in WW I and WWI. People are cheaper than equipment and training.

Even in Korea Canadians were fighting with antique 303 British bolt action rifles against Chinese/Russian semi auto SKS's

Edited October 27, 2010 by Saipan

[The_Squid]

You want to buy some piece of crap plane that will be outclassed and outdated in ten years? When we make our planes fly for thirty?

Nope. I don't. Thanks for asking....

[Alta4ever]

Nope. I don't. Thanks for asking....

so what what modern strike fighter would you buy that has been under development since the 90's or under development now would you buy?

[Handsome Rob]

Figured it worth sharing, some comments from an active CF-18 pilot, somebody that very much has an interest, but doesn't write the budget:

Q:

Is the F-35 really the best choice for this country?

As it is with the aircraft available, I believe that yes.

Q:

There is a lot of talk about what might be needed in what country in the future. If we bought a slightly less stealthy airplane and deployed it overseas in the future - then it would be used on missions where it fit. You wouldn't send it into the most heavilly defended areas - the USAF stleath bombers would do that - just like desert storm.

Stealth doesn't mean completely invisible to radars. It means less visible to radars. It's a feature you want, regardless of the mission you do.

Q:

We have to factor a number of things - including cost. IMHO the JSF is WAY overpriced and it gets more expensive every week. We are only getting 65 planes. Not a whole lot is it? When considering some will be lost operationally and some will be assigined to training squadrons.

The JSF is not overpriced. It will be relevant on the world scene for 30 years. The Super Hornet won't and is as expensive as the JSF. Regardless of what we get, we will get 65 aircraft or at least it is my understanding. FWIW, we will GAIN capability by getting 65 aircraft (vice our current 80, 79, 78 aircraft we currently have. Just a guess but I think the OTU will be done in the US.

Q:

When the F-18 was chosen some of the factors were: "Reasons for the selection listed by the Canadian Forces were many of its requested features were included for the U.S. Navy; two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols) and overall cost. We bought 125 (i think) aircraft - others like the F-14 and F-15 were concidered but ultimatly rejected due to cost.

That was with 1970s engine. The JSF engines (F135 and F136) are more reliable. If you look at the stats of catastrophic engine failures during a mission, it's pretty low. Most engine shut downs I have heard of were preventive.

Q:

Does any CF pilot here think we short changed our air force because we didn't buy F-15's - arguably the best fighter in the world at the time (and still holds it's own today). What's so bad about the super hornet? Almost as cabable (as in it doesn't have stealth) and we could buy a few more of them for the same price. Or any of the others for that matter (Typhoon, Gripen........)

No we did not get shortchanged, because we needed a multi-role fighter. In 1980, the F-15s were purely an Air Superiority fighter with no Air to Ground capabilities at all. The F-15E came later and added the A-G capabilities.

This whole quote juste shows you don't know much. What the JSF offers, no other aircraft can offer. Some of the technology offered by some other 4.5 generation aircraft is similar but the overall package is nowhere near what the JSF offers. Even the F-22 (F-22 lacks A-G). The JSF is very much a completely integrated aircraft, both its sensors and other platforms sensors. Stealth airframe isn't the only difference in capability between the JSF and the Super Hornet. It's much much deeper than that.

Q:

i've met one fighter pilot and he's had an engine failure in the CF18. with a single engined plane he'd have been forced to scrap it. as it is he flew it roughly 100 miles on the other one and landed safely.

Well, two points to pounder...

1- The engine failure you are talking about (probably between Greenwood and Bagotville, turbine disk departed the left engine, leaving the flight controls in a mechanical/electrical back up mode). He elected to land in Bagotville for various reasons, mainly because it's a CF-18 base and there are cables there. If that happened in a single engine aircraft, you don't need to make that decision. You go to the nearest airfield. Period dot. Saying that he would have had to eject is not quite accurate.

2- The Hornet's engines (F404) are 1970s technology. The JSF Engine (F135) is 2000s technology. It is much more reliable than the Hornet's engine. No, it is not perfect, however given the stats on catastrophic engine failures of the Hornet (which is minimal), it's safe to say that odds are that engine failures will be rare on the JSF.

I am an active Hornet driver.

Don't forget, the Super Hornet is a fourth generation aircraft and the new fighter will be our last manned fighter (my opinion) and we better get something that will last us for a while (40 years?)

The big difference between Canada and the countries you listed (most of them) is that we don't spend much on military acquisition. You can bet that if South Korea finds a need for the JSF, they will have the money to do so. As far as Australia goes, they bought the SH as a fill gap between the Legacy Hornets and the JSF. They will buy the JSF in the end.

The JSF offers much much more than any 4th generation fighter. Stealth is one thing, but it's much more than that. The Super Hornet is basically the same thing as our current Hornet (avionic-wise), after they went through the modernization program (and I'd argue they are more capable in some respect).

65 F-35's should protect Alberta's Oil for awhile but I don't know what the rest of you guys are going to do. BC can gettem stoned and MB can maybe give'm TB.

PS Super Hornet is based on a 40 year old design, sorta like putting a hemi and navigation computer in a Ford Pinto and calling it "NEW"....."your turn is coming in 500 feet"

You are aware we have 79 Hornets right now and some of them are used for training? If we contract flight training on the JSF, we would have a greater capability than we have now.

As far as buying the SH, my analogy would be that were are buying a 2010 Ford F150, vice a 1983 Ford F150. Similar design, totally different plane.

However, the price of a SH is not as low as some tend to think here.

---------------------------------------------------

Pulled off a Canadian Aviation forum, he is without question very referential and very conscious of what he will and will not say. Far superior real world commentary to politicized columns from both camps or spun propaganda.

For what it's worth, take what you will.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Handsome Rob

[M.Dancer]

Even in Korea Canadians were fighting with antique 303 British bolt action rifles against Chinese/Russian semi auto SKS's

And so were the British.

My uncle was in the PPCLI in Korea. He said that the Americans would poke fun at them (not for the .303) because of the sword/knife bayonet that they used at the time. After the human wave attacks, they would trade goods for the long bayonet.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Pulled off a Canadian Aviation forum, he is without question very referential and very conscious of what he will and will not say. Far superior real world commentary to politicized columns from both camps or spun propaganda.

For what it's worth, take what you will.

Mostly good stuff....misinformed about F-22 Air-to-Ground capability, as the Raptor can carry two 1,000 lb GBU-32 JDAMs, as pictured here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:F-22_dropping_GBU-32_051020-F-7709A-002.jpg

[dre]

if I had unlimited funds I could buy a Hummer as my everyday vehicle nut I don't so my toyota does the job just fine...

Even if you DID have unlimited funds, Hummers are still pieces of junk and Toyotas are decent vehicles.

[bush_cheney2004]

Even if you DID have unlimited funds, Hummers are still pieces of junk and Toyotas are decent vehicles.

Toyotas are decent vehicles if you survive 'til the recall(s) are completed. GM Hummers are no longer manufactured as of June 2010.

[Wilber]

And so were the British.

My uncle was in the PPCLI in Korea. He said that the Americans would poke fun at them (not for the .303) because of the sword/knife bayonet that they used at the time. After the human wave attacks, they would trade goods for the long bayonet.

Not too good when your best weapon is a bayonet.