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

[Derek 2.0]

Apparently so does the F-35. The Grippen is flying, like the Typhoon, Rafael, Euro Fighter, Super Hornet. All have established records, unlike the F-35. Which we still have yet to acquire, so a Sopwith Camel is currently better than an F-35.

The Gripen NG doesn't have an established record, it's still conducting testing.........We haven't acquired a Hornet replacement yet because we've yet to order one.

[Rue]

The latest cost estimates of the Gripen were not the issue as to why India, Austria, Norway, and Switzerland changed their mind. India went with the Rafale and Typhoon interestingly not the F35. Switzerland is not decided. Switzerland will probably go with the Typhoon or Rafale. It does not need a stealh bomber and Norway has left itself a way out of purchasing its F35's as well.

[Rue]

Here's a site Derek comparing specs. I guess it depends on who you read.

https://jas39gripen.blogspot.ca

[Derek 2.0]

The latest cost estimates of the Gripen were not the issue as to why India, Austria, Norway, and Switzerland changed their mind. India went with the Rafale and Typhoon interestingly not the F35. Switzerland is not decided. Switzerland will probably go with the Typhoon or Rafale. It does not need a stealh bomber and Norway has left itself a way out of purchasing its F35's as well.

The F-35 wasn't offered to the Indians, the Typhoon lost to the Rafale, because the French were willing to share more technology ........The Swiss canceled their Gripen NG purchase over rising costs.......And the Norwegians are fully committed to the program.

[Derek 2.0]

To further the Gripen versus F-35 "debate":

http://www.janes.com/article/36919/finland-should-opt-for-f-35-over-gripen-if-the-price-is-right-minister-says

As reported in the Helsinki Times , Carl Haglund said Finland should not put Nordic defence co-operation ahead of performance when choosing between the Swedish-built Gripen E and the US-built F-35, providing there is little difference in cost between the two types.

"Although I advocate co-operation with Sweden, we should not acquire Swedish [Gripen E] fighters if we could acquire American F-35 stealth fighters for roughly the same price. Performance must take precedence in the investment," he is quoted as saying.

[Rue]

Lol the Norweigans tried to back out and were bribed to stay in from what I read with some nice sub contracts thrown their way, Like Canada their bidding process was a joke. They chose the F35 then worked backwords to justify the choice. Interestingly the cost for F35's was quoted at 42.6 bullion NOK to the Norweigans in 2008 and by 2013 the price had gone u p to 62.6 mil NOK per jet or 10.9 billion US per jet but the price keeps sky rocketing.

The F35 was as you say NOT offered to the Indians but they compared it to the Gripen and Rafale and Typhoon.

The F35 is trying to replace 8 different kinds of aircraft all with different missions. Its not just replacing the F16. I don't agree with that claim. I think beneath all the hype its a ground attack bomber and it can do that well but its not what Canada needs. I also think the South Koreans, Dutch and Swiss all came to doubting the F35 for the same reasons we are now debating it.

Bottom line, its a ridiculous cash cow I think Harper won't pull out of if he's re-elected.

Anyways the debate was great Derek appreciate it but I will now shaddup. Thanks for the zig for the zag. Now you wanna buy me some F22 Raptors I am all ears.

My friends in the IAF liked the Phantom Eagle, the F16 and the Tsfir but interestingly and you would have to ask them, they always used to tell me the Americans would overdo the computer systems and they would end up turning off half the gadgets preferring to relying on their own intuition in the heat of the moment.

In Israel they have far different needs than in Canada of course. Now how any of the big boys the Raptor, the SU35,the Rafale, or Typhoon would do in the heat of the battle who knows. I found I fascinating reading all the specs. I take it all sort of like buying a sports car. Here I am arguing for a Volvo-Sab and you I guess a Cadillac. All I know is I read one interesting forum saying the new Chinese craft ment to go against the F22 is a big gasoline tank that could easily blow up. Man the amount of money spent on such things.

My alien friends who visit say their UFO's make our craft look like a joke. Those little greyguys have no sense of humour by the way. Happy Canada day y'all.

[ASIP]

India went with the Rafale and Typhoon interestingly not the F35.

Indians desperately want a stealth fighter. And as usual, they want technology. For India there is no choice between Rafale or F-35, they are simply in different categories. Rafale is in no way a substitution for a fifth generation fighter.

When reason will dominate minds of Indian military, they can buy F-35.

Edited July 2, 2014 by ASIP

[Moonbox]

Why not? I would still rather have twin engine craft. But if you want comparisons, then the Grippen is a good candidate.

Because the Gripen has a single engine, and if being single-engine is a reason we shouldn't buy the F-35, the Gripen should be a non-starter.

Either way, the Gripen is already approaching 20 years old as a platform and its effectiveness (already eclipsed by a number of existing platforms) is only going to continue to fall. It's a budget plane developed uniquely with a Russian/Soviet threat in mind, and the logic behind its suggestion as a replacement for our current fleet is not really any better than advocating the purchase of modernized F-16's. It's cheap. We get it. There's a reason for that. It's not a bad plane, but the Swedes didn't just come up with a genius design that ended up cheap AND more effective than the competition. It's cheaper for a reason.

[Derek 2.0]

It's cheap. We get it. There's a reason for that. It's not a bad plane, but the Swedes didn't just come up with a genius design that ended up cheap AND more effective than the competition. It's cheaper for a reason.

Actually, the Gripen NG, as I showed aboved with the now canceled (because of rising costs) deal with the Swiss, cost over 110 million per copy as a production unit.......perhaps it's operating costs are drastically cheaper, but the plane itself, like the other European aircraft, isn't cheap.

[Moonbox]

I thought it was around $60M, but I don't really follow it.

[Remiel]

Something to think about in terms of Gripen vs. F35 range: the Gripen supposedly is capable of landing in much less optimal terrain. Potentially the Gripen could have more patrol bases further North, which would give it a substantial edge.

[Smallc]

We have forward deployment bases in Goose Bay, Comox, and Inuvik. We're pretty good in that way over all (ideally, we'd have enough jets to base partial squadrons there on a constant basis, but there is no ideal scenario with the current budget) and that should be able to continue with the F-35.

[Derek 2.0]

Something to think about in terms of Gripen vs. F35 range: the Gripen supposedly is capable of landing in much less optimal terrain. Potentially the Gripen could have more patrol bases further North, which would give it a substantial edge.

That certainly would have been a consideration several decades ago, both for our North and for our then NATO commitment to Norway, but the investment in infrastructure in places like Cambridge Bay or Resolute Bay (places that already handle scheduled flights from 737s) lessen that requirement.

[Derek 2.0]

We have forward deployment bases in Goose Bay, Comox, and Inuvik. We're pretty good in that way over all (ideally, we'd have enough jets to base partial squadrons there on a constant basis, but there is no ideal scenario with the current budget) and that should be able to continue with the F-35.

This is very true, and being able to consistently forward base assets to those fields (more so Comox and Goose Bay) would be a plus, as you alluded to, that’s more a question of both need and finances…….both of which have indicated no need to base interceptors on our coasts (CFB Comox and CFB Chatham) full-time since the retirement of the Voodoos in the early 80s.

[PIK]

And how long would super hornets or the others last in combat with 5th gen planes, a few minutes??

[Derek 2.0]

And how long would super hornets or the others last in combat with 5th gen planes, a few minutes??

It would depend on a whole host of factors in place, but typically it wouldn’t be congruent with a longevity.

[Wilber]

From a cost perspective. Using the US governments inflation calculator, the nearly 29 M per AC we paid for the CF-18's in 1980 would come to nearly 87 M in todays dollars.

[Derek 2.0]

From a cost perspective. Using the US governments inflation calculator, the nearly 29 M per AC we paid for the CF-18's in 1980 would come to nearly 87 M in todays dollars.

Exactly.......And even revisiting the Trudeau Governments selection of our Hornet back then, one could find many of the same disjointed arguments used today……For instance Rene Levesque and his PQ party and the Quebec wings of the Progressive Conservatives and Liberals favoured the then cheaper General Dynamics F-16, fore GD promised to allow local production, plus P&W Canada made a portion of the engine………

Despite the often associated myth of the troubles of single engine aircraft, what actually prevented us from going with the Falcon was that at the time, the aircraft’s radar (APG-66) wasn’t capable of targeting the AIM-7 Sparrow…..which was a clear-cut requirement we had for NORAD to shoot down the hordes of Soviet bombers.

[GostHacked]

Because the Gripen has a single engine, and if being single-engine is a reason we shouldn't buy the F-35, the Gripen should be a non-starter.

I agree 100%. We should not be flying the F-35.

[PIK]

I agree 100%. We should not be flying the F-35.

My understanding is designers design the plane with what it needs, nothing to do with the pilot. If it needs 2 it gets 2 ,if it needs only one it gets one. Is that not how it works Derek?

[On Guard for Thee]

My understanding is designers design the plane with what it needs, nothing to do with the pilot. If it needs 2 it gets 2 ,if it needs only one it gets one. Is that not how it works Derek?

It has very little to do with need it has more to do with want. As a for instance, the old Twin Huey helicopter (twin refers to number of engines) started out life as a single engine. It didn't need two engines, but when the Canadian military decided to buy a bunch they asked Bell to make it a twin. And I could relate you a number of incidents where those aircraft would not have made it home had it not been a twin.

[Derek 2.0]

My understanding is designers design the plane with what it needs, nothing to do with the pilot. If it needs 2 it gets 2 ,if it needs only one it gets one. Is that not how it works Derek?

I assume you’re referring to engines? It’s a myriad of factors, but typically a calculation based on the required amounts of energy the aircraft is expected to need to carry out it’s intended purpose……But with the modernization of technology, we can now do more with less……For example, transoceanic airliners until relatively recently relied upon typically four engine (and some case three) designs….now of course there are safe twins…….with fighters that required longer ranges, a big radar and lots of thrust a larger aircraft was required. With this larger size came weight, and with that a requirement for more energy……..but again as technology has improved, this to has diminished.

For instance, the F-35’s single engine we deliver nearly the same level of dry thrust as our current Hornet’s two engines combined.

[Rue]

For what its worth I am not sure at this point two or one engine is the issue. I like the Gripen precisely because its STOL. It can take off and land in tight spaces and takes far less manpower to maintain on the ground which is a huge deal up North.

Sorry nothing about the F35 cranks my chain although Derek is doing a good job representing its assets. I concede absolutely Derek's last point for sure.

In fact the more I read the more I like the Gripen and wonder why the hell we were even looking at a low level stealth attack on the ground bomber. Are we planning to attack the remaining polar bears with it or what?

At the time the Hornet was picked correct me if I am wrong we could have chosen the F16 but they wanted a twin engine craft. That if I am not mistaken can be traced back to the old widow maker jets right the Voodoo fighters that kept crashing the CF 14 was it...so it was felt a twin engine meant it had less chance of flaring out.

Today for me the guge advantage of the Gripen is its lower maintenance costs, compatability with all NATO weapons systems and F18 left over munitions and its STOL abilities coupled with its range.

The F35 is not for Canada. We never needed it. We got hooked into it jumping on a global bandwagon thinking the sheer volume of nations made it a pick. One by one those nations have all come to the same realization, its too friggin expensive.

I would much prefer the bigger bang for the buck with the Gripen not to mention it leaves more money for helicopters or other craft. This putting our eggs all in one basket makes no sense to me.

The Swedish are going to bide their time. As the F35 costs sky rocket they will patiently wait.

I am no fan of low ceiling attack fighters. I get the Warthog and the Harrier but the F16 and F15 are for countries that genuinely are in need of an attack craft. We do not. Intercepting planes in our airspace because they are being flown by terrorists or the Russians probing our response time does not require a low ground attack craft they are trying to hype as being able to serve as an interceptor. Its not. Its an updated F16.

[Derek 2.0]

In fact the more I read the more I like the Gripen and wonder why the hell we were even looking at a low level stealth attack on the ground bomber. Are we planning to attack the remaining polar bears with it or what?

Then why are you interested in the Gripen? One of the primary intended roles the Swedes had when designing the Gripen was to attack hordes of Soviet tanks.......On the inverse, the F-35 can attack pinpoint targets with JDAMs from over 10 miles away.

At the time the Hornet was picked correct me if I am wrong we could have chosen the F16 but they wanted a twin engine craft. That if I am not mistaken can be traced back to the old widow maker jets right the Voodoo fighters that kept crashing the CF 14 was it...so it was felt a twin engine meant it had less chance of flaring out.

You are wrong, as I highlighted several posts above:

Despite the often associated myth of the troubles of single engine aircraft, what actually prevented us from going with the Falcon was that at the time, the aircraft’s radar (APG-66) wasn’t capable of targeting the AIM-7 Sparrow…..which was a clear-cut requirement we had for NORAD to shoot down the hordes of Soviet bombers.

Today for me the guge advantage of the Gripen is its lower maintenance costs, compatability with all NATO weapons systems and F18 left over munitions and its STOL abilities coupled with its range.

The F-35 will use everything in our current inventory, as to working with NATO, look how many NATO nations are purchasing the Gripen and how many the F-35, and of course, the F-35 surpasses the Gripen's range.

The F35 is not for Canada. We never needed it. We got hooked into it jumping on a global bandwagon thinking the sheer volume of nations made it a pick. One by one those nations have all come to the same realization, its too friggin expensive.

Says who? Now the RCAF has never looked at the Gripen.........

I would much prefer the bigger bang for the buck with the Gripen not to mention it leaves more money for helicopters or other craft. This putting our eggs all in one basket makes no sense to me.

The production Gripen NG, as outlined in the Swiss deal, will cost more then production F-35As.....

The Swedish are going to bide their time. As the F35 costs sky rocket they will patiently wait.

The F-35 costs have been dropping for the last several years.

I am no fan of low ceiling attack fighters.

Yet you want:

With all due respect, you need to gain further understanding of the subject.......

[On Guard for Thee]

I assume you’re referring to engines? It’s a myriad of factors, but typically a calculation based on the required amounts of energy the aircraft is expected to need to carry out it’s intended purpose……But with the modernization of technology, we can now do more with less……For example, transoceanic airliners until relatively recently relied upon typically four engine (and some case three) designs….now of course there are safe twins…….with fighters that required longer ranges, a big radar and lots of thrust a larger aircraft was required. With this larger size came weight, and with that a requirement for more energy……..but again as technology has improved, this to has diminished.

For instance, the F-35’s single engine we deliver nearly the same level of dry thrust as our current Hornet’s two engines combined.

And that single engine has to produce a lot of heat to take the place of two engines. Way too much heat. Not only a problem for that lonely engine but also for the landing surfaces for the VTOL version. Same scenario the Brits went through with the Harrier.