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

[Smallc]

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. The Gripen was built for conditions that are more in line with Canada's situation. Northern conditions, without the best runways, lower maintenance requirements and low cost.

It's not the best AA platform, from what I hear. If we're going to get the Gripen, we might as well buy 100 F-16Vs. They're apparently an amazing aircraft with huge potential to be around for decades.

I've not read anything that 65 typhoons would be better than, say, 100 Gripens.

http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/23/f-22-raptor-kill-markings/

[bush_cheney2004]

Doesn't matter what the available aircraft options can or can't do....Canada is the poster child for deferring such decisions until the options disappear...anything to avoid an actual selection. That's how Canada ended up with a shorter range, carrier based U.S. Navy strike fighter.

[Derek 2.0]

Derek, I think the proponents of the F35 have been dishonest with the citizens of Canada. They're sold on the basis of "defence" but that is not their primary role. They are mostly bomb trucks, intended to be used in misadventures like Afghanistan and Iraq. These operations have not made Canada safer and it can be easily argued they've made Canada less safe.

That's incorrect, the F-35 is no more or no less a "bomb truck" than a modern tactical fighter, their use is a political question. As to the aircraft itself, it is a direct replacement for the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet, both aircraft used as bomb trucks in their own right, inversely, both aircraft make-up the majority contribution by Canada and the United States to NORAD.......going forward, the majority of the American contribution to NORAD will be with the F-35A

When most people think of the fighter procurement, they think of North American air defence and let's face it, the F35's are a poor choice. For fighter planes, they are slow, not very agile and I understand that the requirement to carry weapons internally restricts the type of payload they can carry. They are also very expensive, both to procure and, more importantly, to operate.

Your "facts" of course are not true, as the F-35 is an improvement over the aircraft it will replace. Likewise, the aircraft can carry weapons internally (and externally like a conventional aircraft with a degradation in it's "stealthiness"), but for a typical loadout our current Hornets carry on a NORAD mission (missiles and external fuel), the F-35 can carry internally and not suffer a drag penalty, which results in a stark improvement on performance.

Here is the unspoken bargain that you and other F35 proponents are getting us into. We buy these bomb trucks and participate in dumb missions like Iraq. In return, the US defends our airspace.

Again, that is a political question.......when we started our program that led to the purchase of our current Hornets, nearly 40 years ago, our leaders would never have imagined what they would have been used for, versus their then intended usage.

I would prefer that we, like Sweden, bought aircraft that would be capable of defending our own airspace. And if they didn't last past 2040, well, the operating costs are greater than the procurement costs anyway.

That's misguided logic.....if your intent is defending our airspace, selecting an aircraft that won't be able to do that effectively through its service life, then you're wasting both operating and procurement costs........as through life total operating costs won't differ to any major degree with whatever aircraft we select. Likewise, with procurement costs, outside the F-16 and Super Hornet (very slightly), the other proposed aircraft (Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen NG) currently cost more than the F-35, and with the F-16/Super Hornet, once the F-35 enters full rate production, it will cost less or the same as legacy aircraft.

Economies of scale can't be argued with, as there will be far more F-35s produced then Eurofighters, Rafales, Gripen NGs and Super Hornets combined.

[ReeferMadness]

It's not the best AA platform, from what I hear. If we're going to get the Gripen, we might as well buy 100 F-16Vs. They're apparently an amazing aircraft with huge potential to be around for decades.

http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/23/f-22-raptor-kill-markings/

What does your link really prove? It says nothing about the Gripen NG.

[Big Guy]

I think I live in one of, if not the best country in the world. As a result I think it is worth defending, by Canadians. Apparently you don't. That's my position.

I think I live in one of, if not the best countries in the world. As a result I think it is worth defending. We have a $multi-trillion society to our South which is quite prepared to guarantee our security. That society celebrates their casualties and prides itself in being a warrior nation. I think Canadians have a better way to spend their money than purchasing military equipment from the Americans so the Americans can continue to protect their nation.

The way Canada goes is the way the USA will go. Let them pay for their security.

[Derek 2.0]

What does your link really prove? It says nothing about the Gripen NG.

It proves nothing, as mock dogfights between the USAF F-22s and the Luftwaffe Typhoons are devoid of real world conditions and context.......and the Gripen and Gripen NG is the least suited for our needs, and is why Saab itself pulled its own proposal to Canada.

[Smallc]

What does your link really prove? It says nothing about the Gripen NG.

The F-22 is the pinnacle of air combat. In some respects, the Typhoon is better. The Gripen is mostly an anti tank weapon.

Earlier in the thread, someone said that Canada would have to worry about lawsuits if they exclude the F-35. If they do it by excluding certain capabilities, they won't have a problem, especially considering that Lockheed can still compete with their less expensive offering in the F-16.

[Smallc]

It proves nothing, as mock dogfights between the USAF F-22s and the Luftwaffe Typhoons are devoid of real world conditions and context

Of course games really mean nothing, as the article says. The Typhoon though, is said to be about on par with if not better than the F-15 for air to air. The F-15 was designed for air to air combat.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

Production of the F-15 Eagle is scheduled to end in 2019, more than 50 years after initial development.

Good luck with that option, originally rejected by Canada as too costly way back when.

[Smallc]

Production of the F-15 Eagle is scheduled to end in 2019, more than 50 years after initial development.

The eagle will not be on the table. I'm almost 100% positive it will be Boeing's other offering that will get the nod.

[Derek 2.0]

Of course games really mean nothing, as the article says. The Typhoon though, is said to be about on par with if not better than the F-15 for air to air. The F-15 was designed for air to air combat.

Nope...........Typhoon can't beat AMRAAM-Delta.....

[bush_cheney2004]

The eagle will not be on the table. I'm almost 100% positive it will be Boeing's other offering that will get the nod.

Maybe, but the U.S. government can pressure Boeing to keep Super Bug sales from cannibalizing F-35 orders. That's one of the reasons nobody else got the F-22.

Edited November 17, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

Nope...........Typhoon can't beat AMRAAM-Delta.....

We're talking about the plane, not what it carries (the Typhoon could be modified to carry said weapon, after all.

[Smallc]

Maybe, but the U.S. government can pressure Boeing to keep Super Bug sales from cannibalizing F-35 orders. That's one of the reasons nobody else got the F-22.

That would be illogical, as Canada isn't buying the F-35. They'll simply buy something else - in that case, probably the Rafale.

[Derek 2.0]

The F-22 is the pinnacle of air combat. In some respects, the Typhoon is better. The Gripen is mostly an anti tank weapon.

Earlier in the thread, someone said that Canada would have to worry about lawsuits if they exclude the F-35. If they do it by excluding certain capabilities, they won't have a problem, especially considering that Lockheed can still compete with their less expensive offering in the F-16.

On paper, but then a block 60-61 F-16 won't be much cheaper than a F-35 built in the same factory.........and of course, has the same "failing" as the F-35 (as noted by "experts").......one engine.....Having been operated in the Arctic for nearly 40 years and having a better Class A engine safety record than the F-15 doesn't mater of course.

[Derek 2.0]

Maybe, but the U.S. government can pressure Boeing to keep Super Bug sales from cannibalizing F-35 orders. That's one of the reasons nobody else got the F-22.

I think the bigger elephant in the room is the expected legal challenge by both Boeing and Airbus (Maker of the Typhoon and part owner of Dassault, maker of the Rafale) at the WTO over the Quebec (and likely Canadian) government's "subsidies" to Bombardier for their C-Series regional airliner.

In one fell swoop, the Government of Canada (that will represent Quebec) could be in years long court battles with the makers of the Super Hornet, Typhoon, Eagle and Rafale........

[Smallc]

On paper, but then a block 60-61 F-16 won't be much cheaper than a F-35 built in the same factory

That's very debatable at this point. The F-35 looks like it will cost about twice as much. The US is unlikely to be able to afford the number of aircraft that they originally planned to purchase. Canada's pullout will already increase costs by 1%.

[ReeferMadness]

That's incorrect, the F-35 is no more or no less a "bomb truck" than a modern tactical fighter, their use is a political question. As to the aircraft itself, it is a direct replacement for the F-16 and F/A-18 Hornet, both aircraft used as bomb trucks in their own right, inversely, both aircraft make-up the majority contribution by Canada and the United States to NORAD.......going forward, the majority of the American contribution to NORAD will be with the F-35A

Your "facts" of course are not true, as the F-35 is an improvement over the aircraft it will replace. Likewise, the aircraft can carry weapons internally (and externally like a conventional aircraft with a degradation in it's "stealthiness"), but for a typical loadout our current Hornets carry on a NORAD mission (missiles and external fuel), the F-35 can carry internally and not suffer a drag penalty, which results in a stark improvement on performance.

Again, that is a political question.......when we started our program that led to the purchase of our current Hornets, nearly 40 years ago, our leaders would never have imagined what they would have been used for, versus their then intended usage.

That's misguided logic.....if your intent is defending our airspace, selecting an aircraft that won't be able to do that effectively through its service life, then you're wasting both operating and procurement costs........as through life total operating costs won't differ to any major degree with whatever aircraft we select. Likewise, with procurement costs, outside the F-16 and Super Hornet (very slightly), the other proposed aircraft (Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen NG) currently cost more than the F-35, and with the F-16/Super Hornet, once the F-35 enters full rate production, it will cost less or the same as legacy aircraft.

Economies of scale can't be argued with, as there will be far more F-35s produced then Eurofighters, Rafales, Gripen NGs and Super Hornets combined.

You seem to be arguing against information that is available elsewhere. Here is an excerpt from Janes that shows the operating cost for a Gripen is much, much lower than the flying turkey.

In this link, is a comparison of 5 different planes including the Gripen and the butterball. It shows the Gripen has significant advantages in top speed, wing loading and range. Do you deny that?

And the Gripen could be produced in Canada

What we do know, is that Saab has offered to sell 65 Gripen NGs to Canada, with 40 years worth of maintenance costs for under $6 billion. Saab has also offered that, if Canada wishes, Gripen production could take place in Canada under contract with Bombardier.

Seems like it was built for Canada

The Saab Gripen can take off and land on 800 meters of two lane, snow covered highway. It can be serviced from a transport truck. Within ten minutes, five recruits and one technician can get it refueled, rearmed, and ready to fly again. This means that a Canadian Gripen would be able to land at any Canadian airbase, even during lousy weather. In a pinch, a Gripen could land at small civilian airports throughout the country. In a real pinch, Ontario's 401 or a stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway would be enough.

[Derek 2.0]

We're talking about the plane, not what it carries (the Typhoon could be modified to carry said weapon, after all.

The Typhoon isn't modified to carry the Delta, as such, the F-15 can shoot at and leave before the Typhoon is in range to use its own weapons........hence, the Typhoon, isn't "better" than the Eagle.

[Smallc]

I think the bigger elephant in the room is the expected legal challenge by both Boeing and Airbus (Maker of the Typhoon and part owner of Dassault, maker of the Rafale) at the WTO over the Quebec (and likely Canadian) government's "subsidies" to Bombardier for their C-Series regional airliner.

Which has absolutely - zero - to do with fighter sales. That, and said manufacturers all receive subsidies from their own governments.

[ReeferMadness]

The F-22 is the pinnacle of air combat. In some respects, the Typhoon is better. The Gripen is mostly an anti tank weapon.

You and Derek throw out comments like this but what is your source? Or are you an expert in this area?

[Smallc]

The Typhoon isn't modified to carry the Delta

It could be, that's my point.

[Derek 2.0]

You seem to be arguing against information that is available elsewhere. Here is an excerpt from Janes that shows the operating cost for a Gripen is much, much lower than the flying turkey.

In this link, is a comparison of 5 different planes including the Gripen and the butterball. It shows the Gripen has significant advantages in top speed, wing loading and range. Do you deny that?

And the Gripen could be produced in Canada

Seems like it was built for Canada

I'm not going to rehash the debate with you.........Saab clearly pulled it's own Gripen NG from the Canadian competition because it too well suited and too inexpensive for us.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[bush_cheney2004]

It could be, that's my point.

Will Canada pay the development costs....alone ?

[Smallc]

You and Derek throw out comments like this but what is your source? Or are you an expert in this area?

I'm not an expert, I just read a lot. That doesn't mean I'm always right.

I was going to add this to the discussion:

http://www.aereo.jor.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Rafale-com-2-tanques-2000-l-2-tanques-1250-l-e-casulo-Buddy-Buddy.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--mr28n2iU--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/s4r6l9pjahrhxztgvjvk.jpg

This is something that the Super Hornet and Rafale can do. Useful in Canada's north, I would think.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Smallc