F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

Derek 2.0 · July 9, 2014

From a taxpayer point of view, there's no question. We don't need to line the pockets of LockMart. From a pilot's point of view (and I am one) there's no question. One sketchy engine or 2 proven engines. Those two concepts converge at the point of view of flying the plane, or buying the plane.

I assume when the Super Hornet fleet was grounded twice due to engine issues, both engines were included.

Smallc · July 9, 2014

Many many aircraft have had development problems. The 787 is a really good example. It was behind schedule and had (and does have) multiple problems....yet Boeing hasn't abandoned it. Each problem is looked at and addressed, as Lockheed is doing with that F-35.

On Guard for Thee · July 9, 2014

I will be the first to agree that aircraft have pretty much always had teething pains. Some more that aothers. The F 35 seems to have way more than it's fair share. The concept is wrong. You can't have one airframe doing multi roles just like a Ford Aerostar can't serve as a pickup truck and a sporty convertible. At least not with current technology.

Derek 2.0 · July 9, 2014

I will be the first to agree that aircraft have pretty much always had teething pains. Some more that aothers. The F 35 seems to have way more than it's fair share. The concept is wrong. You can't have one airframe doing multi roles just like a Ford Aerostar can't serve as a pickup truck and a sporty convertible. At least not with current technology.

Yet:

Just two of many designs that do multirole well. :rolleyes:

On Guard for Thee · July 9, 2014

Oh sure. Just once again, not enough engines.

Smallc · July 9, 2014

Oh sure. Just once again, not enough engines.

Perhaps you missed the first picture?

Derek 2.0 · July 9, 2014

Perhaps you missed the first picture?

And the safety record of single engine types in the USAF since 1989

On Guard for Thee · July 9, 2014

Sure, but 2 is better. You can't argue that. Stealth? we don't need it and it doesn't seem to work anyway. It doesn't like to work in cold weather, not so good for Canada. And then there is that damn engine cracking, which has it grounded as we speak, again.

Derek 2.0 · July 9, 2014

Sure, but 2 is better. You can't argue that.

Sure we can........USAF single engine safety record:

http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140520-049.pdf

USAF twin engine safety record:

http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140520-050.pdf

Stealth? we don't need it and it doesn't seem to work anyway.

Would you suggest the military as a whole requires camouflage?

It doesn't like to work in cold weather, not so good for Canada.

Says who?

And then there is that damn engine cracking, which has it grounded as we speak, again.

Yet you want the Super Hornet, even though it was grounded twice for engine issues during development........

On Guard for Thee · July 9, 2014

8 times so far for the 35, and counting

Moonbox · July 10, 2014

Experts like who? Frankly, said "experts" are not purvey to the actual performance data attached to the F-35, fore if they were and divulged such information publicly, they’d be residing within Leavenworth.

They might not be part of the program or have access to classified data, but they're still aviation experts and know a thing or two about aircraft design and/or air combat. They can make educated guesses based on what people DO know. It's kind of similar to your dismissal about future Chinese and Russian threats. Do you or the Pentagon have access to Sukhoi or Russian Defense Ministry technical data on the PAK FA? No, you don't, but it's possible to make educated guesses on the PAK FA's performance and how stealthy it will be based on shape etc.

You stated the F-22 production was halted because of no perceived threats, thusly allowing the F-35 to continue sans further F-22s…..Of course couldn’t it be said that the USAF and Lockheed, the builders of both, realize there are no near-term threats to the F-35, including the developments out of Russia and China, the same aircraft that are often touted of being able to handle the F-35 with ease?

The F-22 was cancelled because of a combination of high costs (both in purchase price and per hour flown) and because of a lack of perceived threat. In any case, even if Russian and Chinese designs end up being able to blow the F-35 out of the air 1v1, they're still going to be able to 'handle' future opposition simply due to numerical and logistical superiority. Nobody can project force like the USA, and the USA isn't likely to initiate large scale operations in Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe, which is essentially where Russia/China are confined to for the foreseeable future.

Ahhh…..not quite, don’t rely on crib notes…..The Serbs positioned a large portion of their search radars along the air corridor, as I mentioned, that the Americans and NATO used repeatedly. To avoid being waxed by American and NATO Wild Weasels, much like the NVA two decades earlier, they would strobe their radars on and off…….They have claimed to have detected the F-117 with said radars, but of course, when using older Soviet SAMS (SA-2 and SA-3), said SAMS require continuous telemetry data from the fire control radar…if you strobe the radar on and off, as made evident during Vietnam, said missile becomes a firework…….Unless of course the missile also makes use of infrared homing, as was the case with upgraded SA-3s.

You make a few interesting points, but the fact is that the F-117 was detected by a second-rate military's ancient (albeit upgraded) and improvised radar/SAM system. I don't see how whether the missile was radar or IR guided makes any difference. The plane was spotted by radar in the first place, and if it needed IR guidance to hit home then who cares? The fact that NATO strike missions were becoming predictable certainly amounts to something, but so should the fact that they were fighting a relatively pipsqueak enemy with already outdated equipment.

Winslow Wheeler? I notice he didn't break down said figures......and added the costs of the continual upgrades.......Of course, the biggest and often most quoted critic of the F-35 has no direct aviation experience, was fired/forced to resign from Government, just after the X-35 won, and hasn’t had any direct experience with the program……and of course, works for a peacenik think tank that is critical of every defence program.

Winslow Wheeler is no less biased a source than Lockheed Martin and Pentagon spokespeople parroting PR lines. In this case, he's not even talking about the F-35's performance in the air. He's merely pulling numbers from the Office of the Under Secretary and his breakdown of cost in those charts was a simple calculation of annual procurement costs vs authorized production. If you have problems with those numbers, let's hear them, but that's pretty simple math and it shows a pretty simple trend.

Regardless, we've been having this same argument for years. You seem willing/eager to believe Lockheed Martin figures and Pentagon dissimulation. The outside media (and myself) however, have trouble with the basic math being presented. When you're way late and way over budget, something has to give. You can't continue to pretend that per unit costs don't rise relative to a ballooning budget and painfully lengthened schedules.

I never said there weren't........They outnumbered NATO in terms of aircraft, much like your concern of Russia repeating this past trend........I've no doubt in my mind that Western aircraft like the F-35, will contend well against future Russian aircraft.

I'm not concerned with Russia and China flooding the markets with cheap and inferior fighters. I'm more concerned with Russia and China making enough advances in radar and IR tech to diminish stealth advantages while at the same time placing more emphasis on air-superiority platforms than the US. Conceivably, they could end up producing enough PAK FA's or whatever to overwhelm the USA's F-22's, leaving the F-35 in a tricky place. Thankfully, the Russians don't appear to have the economy for it and the Chinese are far enough behind in technical expertise (apparently) that this shouldn't be the case.

You and the Pentagon are probably right and the F-22 is probably not necessary. Even so, the logistical and economic advantages of single-sourcing most of your air force are being badly eroded by a disastrous procurement program and it starts to make you wonder if it wouldn't have been wiser to run multiple programs with differing roles instead. No, I'm not suggesting we go back to the 1960's and 70's where it was hard to keep track of what the hell flew on a carrier flight deck, but it appears we've gone from one extreme to the other this time.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Moonbox

bush_cheney2004 · July 10, 2014

...No, I'm not suggesting we go back to the 1960's and 70's where it was hard to keep track of what the hell flew on a carrier flight deck, but it appears we've gone from one extreme to the other this time.

What do you mean by "we" ? How many different platforms did Canada develop or procure to avoid such an extreme "mistake" ? How does that apply to the present CF-188 replacement ?

Derek 2.0 · July 10, 2014

They might not be part of the program or have access to classified data, but they're still aviation experts and know a thing or two about aircraft design and/or air combat. They can make educated guesses based on what people DO know. It's kind of similar to your dismissal about future Chinese and Russian threats. Do you or the Pentagon have access to Sukhoi or Russian Defense Ministry technical data on the PAK FA? No, you don't, but it's possible to make educated guesses on the PAK FA's performance and how stealthy it will be based on shape etc.

Big difference between a member of the media, with no direct aviation experience, and the US intelligence apparatus…….

The F-22 was cancelled because of a combination of high costs (both in purchase price and per hour flown) and because of a lack of perceived threat. In any case, even if Russian and Chinese designs end up being able to blow the F-35 out of the air 1v1, they're still going to be able to 'handle' future opposition simply due to numerical and logistical superiority. Nobody can project force like the USA, and the USA isn't likely to initiate large scale operations in Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe, which is essentially where Russia/China are confined to for the foreseeable future.

And that’s my point……….The Russians and Chinese designs for the next several decades, will not pose a threat to the operational usage of the F-35 fleet……..

You make a few interesting points, but the fact is that the F-117 was detected by a second-rate military's ancient (albeit upgraded) and improvised radar/SAM system. I don't see how whether the missile was radar or IR guided makes any difference. The plane was spotted by radar in the first place, and if it needed IR guidance to hit home then who cares? The fact that NATO strike missions were becoming predictable certainly amounts to something, but so should the fact that they were fighting a relatively pipsqueak enemy with already outdated equipment.

It was claimed to be detected by said radar……..As to the difference, IR guidance is many magnitudes

And yes, the mistakes made by the USAF were certainly something………simply put, if the Americans used multiple routes, the Serbs wouldn’t have been able to accurately place their search radars and SAM batteries in such an ambush, as the Serbs would have been more reliant upon emitting at greater intervals, which in turn, would have led to their own destruction via a HARM missile…….The Serbs owed their success to luck and complacency on the part of the Americans…..But of course, let’s put this into perspective, operationally a single stealth aircraft has been shot down…….How many non-stealth aircraft, since Vietnam, have been shot down by the very same Soviet SAMs?

Winslow Wheeler is no less biased a source than Lockheed Martin and Pentagon spokespeople parroting PR lines. In this case, he's not even talking about the F-35's performance in the air. He's merely pulling numbers from the Office of the Under Secretary and his breakdown of cost in those charts was a simple calculation of annual procurement costs vs authorized production. If you have problems with those numbers, let's hear them, but that's pretty simple math and it shows a pretty simple trend.

Look at both Wheelers and Pierre Sprey (the F-35 most vocal critics) records on assessing defence programs…….in their view, everything from the F-15, to Apache and Abrams tank, C-17 and D-5 Trident have been failures……..the two of them are Muppets

Regardless, we've been having this same argument for years. You seem willing/eager to believe Lockheed Martin figures and Pentagon dissimulation. The outside media (and myself) however, have trouble with the basic math being presented. When you're way late and way over budget, something has to give. You can't continue to pretend that per unit costs don't rise relative to a ballooning budget and painfully lengthened schedules.

Ultimately who is correct will be proven right as time goes by…….I feel when the manufacturer and the main purchaser’s numbers align, there is no discombobulating basic math to skew.

I'm not concerned with Russia and China flooding the markets with cheap and inferior fighters. I'm more concerned with Russia and China making enough advances in radar and IR tech to diminish stealth advantages while at the same time placing more emphasis on air-superiority platforms than the US. Conceivably, they could end up producing enough PAK FA's or whatever to overwhelm the USA's F-22's, leaving the F-35 in a tricky place. Thankfully, the Russians don't appear to have the economy for it and the Chinese are far enough behind in technical expertise (apparently) that this shouldn't be the case.

That is a truism since the dawn of man though…….someone will always make a better rock……the trick, to stay ahead of the curve.

You and the Pentagon are probably right and the F-22 is probably not necessary. Even so, the logistical and economic advantages of single-sourcing most of your air force are being badly eroded by a disastrous procurement program and it starts to make you wonder if it wouldn't have been wiser to run multiple programs with differing roles instead. No, I'm not suggesting we go back to the 1960's and 70's where it was hard to keep track of what the hell flew on a carrier flight deck, but it appears we've gone from one extreme to the other this time.

There are no real economic or logistical advantages to running multiple programs…..if there were, the JSF program would never have been born…….RAND claimed there was, but didn’t provide both their methodology and end result……….Would a Super Duper Hornet, Harrier III and Falcon Block 100 have been cheaper? Certainly, but you’re then relying upon a decades old root design that would/will be surpassed by both the Chinese and Russians.

Moonbox · July 11, 2014

What do you mean by "we" ? How many different platforms did Canada develop or procure to avoid such an extreme "mistake" ? How does that apply to the present CF-188 replacement ?

I was wondering how long it would take for you to inevitably poke your head out. As usual, you have nothing useful to add other than your standard "haha Canada!" drive-by troll. How many times have you made some variation of this exact comment in this thread by now? 20, 30, 50 times maybe? Glad you're still with us bud.

Derek 2.0 · July 11, 2014

I was wondering how long it would take for you to inevitably poke your head out. As usual, you have nothing useful to add other than your standard "haha Canada!" drive-by troll. How many times have you made some variation of this exact comment in this thread by now? 20, 30, 50 times maybe? Glad you're still with us bud.

I disagree.......he does have a point.......The development of modern military hardware, of the same capabilities as the F-35, are out of the scope of most middle tier powers on financial grounds alone……..

Edited July 11, 2014 by Derek 2.0

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2014

I was wondering how long it would take for you to inevitably poke your head out. As usual, you have nothing useful to add other than your standard "haha Canada!" drive-by troll. How many times have you made some variation of this exact comment in this thread by now? 20, 30, 50 times maybe? Glad you're still with us bud.

I see...a personal attack instead of responding to the question. I eagerly await Canada's investment in multiple platforms for maximum mission effectiveness, regardless of cost.

Moonbox · July 11, 2014

Big difference between a member of the media, with no direct aviation experience, and the US intelligence apparatus…….

No direct aviation experience? Are you serious? Are you going to categorically claim that there aren't any pilots/aviation experts voicing concern about this plane? Really?

The media is reporting on the information people are coming out with. Some of it might be reliable, some of it less so, but I don't think you're stupid enough to suggest that we should swallow all of a government contractor's talking points as fact. Similarly, the administration that's thrown their lot in with this contractor for hundreds of billions of public dollars might not be the most trustworthy source of information either.

And that’s my point……….The Russians and Chinese designs for the next several decades, will not pose a threat to the operational usage of the F-35 fleet……..

Probably not.

But of course, let’s put this into perspective, operationally a single stealth aircraft has been shot down…….How many non-stealth aircraft, since Vietnam, have been shot down by the very same Soviet SAMs?

If we're going to actually put it into perspective, let's first put some perspective on your perspective. Only 59 F-117's were ever built for service. One of them was shot down. Another one was apparently damaged beyond repair in the same conflict. Basically between 1.5 - 3.0% of all F-117 stealth aircraft were knocked out by a second-rate military using obsolete equipment. As far as I know, only two F-18's have been lost to enemy fire, (8 more damaged but subsequently repaired), and there were 1500 of them built for the US and they saw far more use and service per plane than the F-117 ever did.

Look at both Wheelers and Pierre Sprey (the F-35 most vocal critics) records on assessing defence programs…….in their view, everything from the F-15, to Apache and Abrams tank, C-17 and D-5 Trident have been failures……..the two of them are Muppets

I referenced Wheeler's brief synopsis of the Pentagon and Lockheed's funny math. As for defence programs, the US has a history of disasters mixed in with their successes. The F-22 is a prime example of failure. For a program that cost $62B, they netted themselves 195 fighter jets. That works out to be about $318M per plane. Good job. The B2 is another great example. $44 billion to build 21 strategic bombers. Good job. Even the M1 tank wasn't the most brilliant program, despite over 9000 units being built. With enormous economy of scale advantages, they managed to produce a much more expensive, but not more effective, tank than the Leopard 2A6. Nobody can say that the Abrams is a bad tank, but you could certainly argue that there were some failures along the way in managing costs relative to performance.

Ultimately who is correct will be proven right as time goes by…….I feel when the manufacturer and the main purchaser’s numbers align, there is no discombobulating basic math to skew.

When program costs balloon and order quantities remain the same, the only possible solution is an increase in unit cost.Regardless of whether or not the production learning curve yields significant cost reductions, the fact remains that the program ran over $160B over budget and is now estimated at $400B for the Pentagon to purchase 2400 planes. I know you're good enough at math to see how that doesn't equate to a unit cost of <$100M for US taxpayers.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Moonbox

Moonbox · July 11, 2014

I see...a personal attack instead of responding to the question. I eagerly await Canada's investment in multiple platforms for maximum mission effectiveness, regardless of cost.

If you think that's a personal attack, please feel free to report me. Your question was both mocking and rhetorical. Providing an answer would serve no purpose. Rather than nitpick me on my usage of the word "we", maybe you could actually respond sincerely to something I've said like Derek has been. It's hard to see how a post like yours could be anything BUT a bait/troll.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Moonbox

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2014

If you think that's a personal attack, please feel free to report me. Your question was of the mocking rhetorical variety and providing an answer would serve no purpose. Rather than nitpick me on my usage of the word "we", maybe you could actually respond sincerely to something I've said like Derek has been, otherwise you're just baiting and trolling.

No....you are being challenged for assertions made about U.S. military aircraft development and procurement in the context of "we", while offering nothing that would support such a position given Canada's historical development and choices for tactical aircraft. In the end, the only reason Canada has any choice at all is because other nations pony up most of the money and take the risks to develop such aircraft.

Moonbox · July 11, 2014

No....you are being challenged for assertions made about U.S. military aircraft development and procurement in the context of "we", while offering nothing that would support such a position given Canada's historical development and choices for tactical aircraft. In the end, the only reason Canada has any choice at all is because other nations pony up most of the money and take the risks to develop such aircraft.

So essentially what you're saying is that you find it insulting as an American that a Canadian would be criticizing US procurement programs, right? My use of the word "we" is hardly the crux of the matter. Perhaps it was a typo. Perhaps I meant it as collective NATO "we". It has nothing to do with whether the F-35 was a well-run program. You're upset/annoyed that Canadians are criticizing? Good to know... :rolleyes:

Edited July 11, 2014 by Moonbox

bush_cheney2004 · July 11, 2014

So essentially what you're saying is that you find it insulting as an American that a Canadian would be criticizing US procurement programs, right? My use of the word "we" is hardly the crux of the matter.

No...I find it silly (not insulting) that a "Canadian" presents such criticism in the context of "we" while having invested far, far less in the actual design, development, and production of military aircraft platforms. As a Tier 3 partner in the JSF program, Canada was in it for the jobs offsets, not bleeding edge 5th generation strike fighter design, getting subcontracts to date equivalent to the investment made. If that wasn't silly enough, we get more peanut gallery criticism of historical choices made for multi-role platforms instead of dedicated aircraft types. All this from a nation that hasn't even figured out how to buy military rotary winged aircraft yet, let alone develop them. Priceless !

If you don't like the compromises made for the JSF....that's fine...but having absolutely nothing to offer as an alternative hardly qualifies for a "we". Even tiny Sweden manages to do more than just talk.

Edited July 11, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

On Guard for Thee · July 11, 2014

And we still don't know what the hell this "fifth generation" is supposed to be. Catchy little phrase I guess.

Derek 2.0 · July 11, 2014

No direct aviation experience? Are you serious? Are you going to categorically claim that there aren't any pilots/aviation experts voicing concern about this plane? Really?

The media is reporting on the information people are coming out with. Some of it might be reliable, some of it less so, but I don't think you're stupid enough to suggest that we should swallow all of a government contractor's talking points as fact. Similarly, the administration that's thrown their lot in with this contractor for hundreds of billions of public dollars might not be the most trustworthy source of information either.

I yet to hear of anyone with firsthand knowledge of the F-35 critique the program, outside of cost and development delays, and suggest the final result will be a failure.

If we're going to actually put it into perspective, let's first put some perspective on your perspective. Only 59 F-117's were ever built for service. One of them was shot down. Another one was apparently damaged beyond repair in the same conflict. Basically between 1.5 - 3.0% of all F-117 stealth aircraft were knocked out by a second-rate military using obsolete equipment. As far as I know, only two F-18's have been lost to enemy fire, (8 more damaged but subsequently repaired), and there were 1500 of them built for the US and they saw far more use and service per plane than the F-117 ever did.

The F-117 was a subsonic aircraft, devoid of the same manoeuvrability, compared to other legacy types of similar vintage…….this alone would detract from it’s ability to out-manoeuvre, when even contrasted with Vietnam era aircraft, the Serb SAM after launch.

I referenced Wheeler's brief synopsis of the Pentagon and Lockheed's funny math. As for defence programs, the US has a history of disasters mixed in with their successes. The F-22 is a prime example of failure. For a program that cost $62B, they netted themselves 195 fighter jets. That works out to be about $318M per plane. Good job. The B2 is another great example. $44 billion to build 21 strategic bombers. Good job. Even the M1 tank wasn't the most brilliant program, despite over 9000 units being built. With enormous economy of scale advantages, they managed to produce a much more expensive, but not more effective, tank than the Leopard 2A6. Nobody can say that the Abrams is a bad tank, but you could certainly argue that there were some failures along the way in managing costs relative to performance.

You’re judging the end results as an accountant………On a battlefield the final price tag of a given piece of equipment is of little concern.

As to the Leopard II (My younger brother is currently a crew commander of one), this tank began as a joint development with the Americans, which ultimately resulted in both the Abrams and Leo II……..Of course, to judge performance, one need only look at the combat record of both types……You can be certain, only an idiot would call the Abrams a failure.

When program costs balloon and order quantities remain the same, the only possible solution is an increase in unit cost.Regardless of whether or not the production learning curve yields significant cost reductions, the fact remains that the program ran over $160B over budget and is now estimated at $400B for the Pentagon to purchase 2400 planes. I know you're good enough at math to see how that doesn't equate to a unit cost of <$100M for US taxpayers.

Certainly, but the developmental burden is namely placed on the tier 1 partners……..For Canada (or any of the other partners), or unit cost at purchase won’t reflect this price of development, fore we’ve already paid our agreed share of developmental funding, a total already superseded by economical benefits to Canadian industry.

Moonbox · July 11, 2014

No...I find it silly (not insulting) that a "Canadian" presents such criticism in the context of "we" while having invested far, far less in the actual design, development, and production of military aircraft platforms.

There it is again, the nitpicking of pronouns. My use of "we" never in any way suggested that Canada was an equal partner in the F-35 program. For most practical purposes, we're barely involved.

All this from a nation that hasn't even figured out how to buy military rotary winged aircraft yet, let alone develop them. Priceless !

If you don't like the compromises made for the JSF....that's fine...but having absolutely nothing to offer as an alternative hardly qualifies for a "we". Even tiny Sweden manages to do more than just talk.

Right, so again, as far as you're concerned my criticism of the F-35 program is ~~insulting~~ silly because I'm Canadian. Good to know what sort of logic we're dealing with.

Moonbox · July 11, 2014

I yet to hear of anyone with firsthand knowledge of the F-35 critique the program, outside of cost and development delays, and suggest the final result will be a failure.

The people with firsthand knowledge of the program, as far as I know, are limited to Lockheed Martin and Pentagon officials, with perhaps a smattering of British military aviators, none of whom are permitted to speak freely.

The F-117 was a subsonic aircraft, devoid of the same manoeuvrability, compared to other legacy types of similar vintage…….this alone would detract from it’s ability to out-manoeuvre, when even contrasted with Vietnam era aircraft, the Serb SAM after launch.

It was also essentially an experimental design. Regardless, you were making a comparison between stealth and non-stealth aircraft casualties, and rather than compare the F-117 to Vietnam era aircraft like you were, I gave it a contemporary comparison.

You’re judging the end results as an accountant………On a battlefield the final price tag of a given piece of equipment is of little concern.

That's categorically false. The only way that would be true would be if you had infinite money and infinite resources, which nobody does. Cost efficiencies have to be taken into account, and compromises have to be made based on that. Putting more money into a specific platform usually increases overall performance, but eventually there are diminishing returns. A $20M upgraded Abrams tank would likely prove more effective in combat than the standard design, but would it prove twice as effective? Unlikely.

As to the Leopard II (My younger brother is currently a crew commander of one), this tank began as a joint development with the Americans, which ultimately resulted in both the Abrams and Leo II……..Of course, to judge performance, one need only look at the combat record of both types……You can be certain, only an idiot would call the Abrams a failure.

The Abrams is a fantastic tank. In the Gulf War the armor on it proved so strong that when one got stuck in the mud and had to be abandoned, it turned out that even another Abrams couldn't penetrate its REAR armor, and it thus it couldn't actually be abandoned. The Leopard 2, however, is just as good of a tank and less expensive as well, albeit designed for for a somewhat different purpose.

Certainly, but the developmental burden is namely placed on the tier 1 partners……..For Canada (or any of the other partners), or unit cost at purchase won’t reflect this price of development, fore we’ve already paid our agreed share of developmental funding, a total already superseded by economical benefits to Canadian industry.

Despite the fact that I started this thread, I mostly agree with this. The F-35 is the best and only realistic option for Canada moving forward. As an overall program, however, it was poorly managed and for the amount of money they spent, the Americans could have likely done better. Obviously, this matters relatively little to Canada.