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

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure it will but they are useless as fighters when used in that roll. Other than the U2 and SR-71 there have been almost no dedicated reconnaissance aircraft designed. and built

Several fighter/strike aircraft were drafted into the recon role by necessity or design. Example would be the RA-5 Vigilante and RF-4 Phantom.

USMC squadrons presently have F/A-18 D ATARS configured aircraft to fulfill the tactical reconnaissance mission.

What platforms do Canadian Forces use for tactical recon or BDA ?

Edited November 30, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

What platforms do Canadian Forces use for tactical recon or BDA ?

Good question. I don't know what capability our CF-18's have. The forces would like UAV's but whether they get any is a big unknown at this point.

[bush_cheney2004]

Good question. I don't know what capability our CF-18's have. The forces would like UAV's but whether they get any is a big unknown at this point.

I'm pretty sure that Canada has lightweight, short range UAVs like Sperwer and Skylark, and of course Aurora patrol aircraft can do some of the missions. Don't know if CF-18's have ATARS or other recon pods. Purchasing largers UAVs has fallen into the same black hole as the CF-18 replacement ($$$) going on ten years now.

[Smallc]

Good question. I don't know what capability our CF-18's have. The forces would like UAV's but whether they get any is a big unknown at this point.

Since they were already supposed to have them, it was a big unknown long before this point.

[segnosaur]

This whole thing reminds me of he disastrous Avro Arrow incident when the Americans convinced us that fighters weren't necessary anymore because missiles were taking over. Brilliant decision that was.

Never forgiven Diefenbaker for that. What a set back to our aerospace industry, and boy those Bomarc's sure came in handy eh.

Cost of a Bomarc missile: $1.2 million (http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5715)

Cost of an Avro Arrow: $3.5-5 million

Given the fact that Soviet bombers were no longer the major threat at the time, I'd much rather see them spend 1/3rd of the amount of money on missiles than on planes that would have had extremely limited use.

The fact that you consider the Arrow as such a tragic loss illustrates your rather questionable grasp of military matters.

[ReeferMadness]

The F35 has not necessarily sacrificed "speed/agility/flexibility"... The problem is, the Anti-F35 crowd keeps quoting the abilities of the potential competitors in a clean configuration (i.e. not carrying weapons), ignoring the fact that the F35, in many cases, is faster/more agile when in combat because it can carry weapons internally.

Without carrying missiles, planes like the Gripen and Super Hornet (in theory) can outrun the F35. Yet that's pretty much a useless comparison, since a fighter plane without weapons is pretty useless. If you start putting missiles/bombs on the Gripen/Super hornet, you introduce drag, which reduces maximum speed, agility and range. On the other hand, the F35 can carry many of its weapons internally. No external weapons means it won't have the same impact on speed or range when in combat.

I've not seen any statistics from the butterball fans that say the F35 isn't a slug even compared with a loaded competitor. Just a bunch of claims (like this one). But even if that were the case, can you think of an instance when speed would be handy when you have no weapons? Hmmmm.... how about when you're heading home?

You also make the mistake in assuming stealth is the only single advantageous trait that the F35 has. It is not. The improved avionics (better sensors and communications), and the new helmet (giving better situational awareness) are probably just as important as its stealth capabilities.

I didn't make that assumption, I merely said that it seemed risky to trade away speed, agility and weapons loading for one trait which has yet to be proven in air to air combat and which could be defeated by technological advances.

In fact, there are persistent stories that stealth aircraft can be detected by low frequency radar and that an F117 was downed over Serbia using an old SAM missile using this technique. The F117 also traded away speed and maneuverability for stealth.

The butterball will be a hideously expensive flying white elephant if the stealth element is cracked.

Oh, and I'm not sure why you think the F35 has "less flexibility to carry weapons". Even if its internal weapons bays may have limited carrying potential, it still has external hardpoints where it can mount weapons, if it really needs to. (Of course, doing so would introduce some drag, but a part internal/part external mix of weapons would still produce less drag than the all-external weapons mounted on a Gripen/Super Hornet.

And by the way, I took a look at the weapons each of the planes can carry...According to Wikipedia:

Gripen: 9 different missiles/bombs

Super Hornet: 16 different missiles/bombs

Rafale: 10 different missiles/bombs

Eurofighter Typhoon: 16 different missiles/bombs

F35: 20 different missiles/bombs

Granted, some of those programs are in development, but it certainly does look like the F35 is certainly competitive with the range of weapons it is able to carry.

Sure, if you loaded it up externally and trade away stealth, the one advantage you traded away everything else for. Truly a bomb truck at that point.

Actually, it was a brilliant decision.

The Arrow was not a multi-role fighter... it was an interceptor.... designed to fly very fast in one direction. It was not designed to be a "dog fighter"; it was meant to intercept russian bombers entering our air space. The development of long range missile technology meant that it was no longer needed.

Brilliant for the Americans. They got all those unemployed engineers. And we bought useless missiles. Just like you want us to buy flying turkeys.

[ReeferMadness]

The advent of ICBM's made dedicated bomber interceptors much less relevant and lead to the multiroll fighters that have been built ever since. There hasn't been one successful western fighter built since then hasn't been used as a "bomb truck". We even used our CF-104's as "bomb trucks" in their NATO roll. This was an aircraft that held both altitude and speed records and was initially designed as interceptor.

Most fighters are multi-role but not all are equally good at all things. Seems like the fighter part of the butterball has been mostly sacrificed to make a better bomb truck.

Don't forget that the butterball was designed to play a supporting role to the F22 for the American military. When you have a 'money is no object' military, you can get away with a an under-performing bomb truck with a premium price. If the butterball can't fight, it will have its big brother the F22 to come in and protect it.

Canada doesn't have a 'money is no object' military.

[On Guard for Thee]

Cost of a Bomarc missile: $1.2 million (http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5715)

Cost of an Avro Arrow: $3.5-5 million

Given the fact that Soviet bombers were no longer the major threat at the time, I'd much rather see them spend 1/3rd of the amount of money on missiles than on planes that would have had extremely limited use.

The fact that you consider the Arrow as such a tragic loss illustrates your rather questionable grasp of military matters.

And the Bomarc missiles did exactly what? That's right, nada. Waste of money. Although the NWS does use one of their installations for a cetral comms. post.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Don't forget that the butterball was designed to play a supporting role to the F22 for the American military.

Perfect, because that is what Canada's "fighter jets" do anyway....support the American military.

[ReeferMadness]

Look. I get it. Those of you who get all starry eyed at the prospect of shiny war toys under the tree want the best. And even though there is no accepted definition of what 5th generation means (it reminds me of this), it must be better than all those 4th generation planes, right??. And for those of you with an acknowledge financial interest in the outcome, the butterball must be very attractive.

Here's the deal. While the butterball may not be a great military weapon, it will be a tremendous economic and policy tool - for the Americans. It allows them to capture enormous amounts of money from other countries to subsidize their military R&D. And it effectively ensures that those other countries only participate in approved wars.

[Derek 2.0]

Several fighter/strike aircraft were drafted into the recon role by necessity or design. Example would be the RA-5 Vigilante and RF-4 Phantom.

USMC squadrons presently have F/A-18 D ATARS configured aircraft to fulfill the tactical reconnaissance mission.

What platforms do Canadian Forces use for tactical recon or BDA ?

The thing of that, starting with the Tomcats TARPS pod namely, the recon birds (including the RF-4) still would carry drop tanks, an ECM pod, maybe a HARM or Shrike anti-radiation missile and 2-4 AAM for self defense.......

BDA now can typically be conducted in real time with the strike package.........or UAVs and satellites if required after the fact......likewise recon. The most valuable ISTAR aircraft today are aircraft like our CP-140s or your Rivet Joints....

[Derek 2.0]

Here's the deal. While the butterball may not be a great military weapon, it will be a tremendous economic and policy tool - for the Americans. It allows them to capture enormous amounts of money from other countries to subsidize their military R&D. And it effectively ensures that those other countries only participate in approved wars.

Not quite, all of the partners (including Canada) paid varying levels of the aircraft's development, in return, will receive a proportional amount of the production work............Judging by this Government's (very quite) reversal to leave the program, we're still in it, are sending people to the next partners meeting and will pay our next portion ($150 million) of the aircraft's development..........

I would assume this reversal is largely due to the real World implications of leaving the program, becoming known to the Trudeau Liberals.........I will continue to assume this Government won't purchase anything inside this mandate, punting the selection into the early 2020s, and then (if still Government) will select the F-35 (something the Tories wouldn't oppose), and Lockmart/DoD will "grant" something to the Trudeau Liberals (like an international F-35 training base inside Canada and/or the larger contracts for Canadian industry once the F-35 enters full production in ~2020) to allow the government to save face........

[Smallc]

You also assumed that they wouldn't lease the Asterix.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Smallc

[Derek 2.0]

Don't forget that the butterball was designed to play a supporting role to the F22 for the American military. When you have a 'money is no object' military, you can get away with a an under-performing bomb truck with a premium price. If the butterball can't fight, it will have its big brother the F22 to come in and protect it.

Which is no different than the F-16 playing a "supporting role" (it's actually the other way around in both examples) to the F-15.......of course the majority of the USAF's contribution to NORAD is the F-16 and to be replaced by the F-35.....

Again you're conflicting end user usage to an aircraft.........Our current Hornets (that we use for NORAD/NATO) were built in the same factory as United States Navy Hornets that they use for fleet air defense and strike missions, as were the USMC's hornets (the same as ours) that they use namely for close air support for ground forces........this would be no different going forwards with the F-35.

[Derek 2.0]

You also assumed that they wouldn't lease the Asterix.

In that example, I'm glad that I was wrong............but then Trudeau would have had a hard time squaring an $89 million circle with nothing to show for.

[Smallc]

At this point I think all assumptions are out the window. So far the government has done their best to not abandon their word.

[Derek 2.0]

At this point I think all assumptions are out the window. So far the government has done their best to not abandon their word.

Actions speak louder than words..........we're still members of the F-35 program, we're sending personal to the next partners meeting in Italy and the Government has confirmed it will pay an additional $150 million in developmental fees for the F-35 program..........That, to me, doesn't sound like this Government is leaving the F-35 program........

How does one have a "open and fair" competition when we're paying to develop one of the competitors?

[Smallc]

The development program and the acquisition are completely separate.

It may be necessary to include the F-35 in a competition. It's unlikely it will win with a reduced budget envelope.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Smallc

[Big Guy]

...

See the question in bold text above? That's what I want answered.

Sorry - I do not respond to parsed statements. BTW I really am not concerned about what you wasn't answered.

[bush_cheney2004]

What would happen if Canada holds a "competition" and nobody shows up ?

[Smallc]

Sorry - I do not respond to parsed statements. BTW I really am not concerned about what you wasn't answered.

You do understand that this site has a rule about only quoting what you're responding too, right?

[WestCoastRunner]

Sorry - I do not respond to parsed statements. BTW I really am not concerned about what you wasn't answered.

The mods encourage parsed statements.

[WestCoastRunner]

What would happen if Canada holds a "competition" and nobody shows up ?

Oh gosh. What an intelligent response. How on earth would anyone respond to this?

[Derek 2.0]

The development program and the acquisition are completely separate.

Are we paying to develop the advanced Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen NG?

It may be necessary to include the F-35 in a competition.

If they want a "fair and open competition".

It's unlikely it will win with a reduced budget envelope.

Why? It's currently cheaper than most of the alternatives.

[Wilber]

The development program and the acquisition are completely separate.

It may be necessary to include the F-35 in a competition. It's unlikely it will win with a reduced budget envelope.

So Lockheed will be invited for show, knowing the government has no intention of awarding them a contract regardless of the outcome. There's integrity for ya.