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

[waldo]

When have our jets ever been in a dogfight? Our jets are used for bombing runs.

so... you're down with Canada's requirements limited to "bombing runs"?

[segnosaur]

When have our jets ever been in a dogfight? Our jets are used for bombing runs.

so... you're down with Canada's requirements limited to "bombing runs"?

I don't think anyone is saying that. After all, at the very least we do need some sort of ability to handle issues over our own air space (similar to 9/11-type hijackings, Payne Stewart mishaps where contact is lost, or Mathais Rust incidents.)

The problem is the anti-F35 people here put far too much emphasis on the incorrect belief that "the F35 can't dogfight", like they think our air force is composed of Tom Cruise clones and our planes are regularly getting into top-gun scenarios. And they regularly chant things like "bomb truck" like its some magic spell that will make the big bad F35 go away (ignoring the fact that bombing ground targets is something our air force does on a fairly regular basis, something that all major federal political parties have agreed to at one time or another.).

The F35 can handle the air-to-air missions that we would reasonably expect them to have to deal with, and its good at attacking targets on the ground, something that we also expect our planes to do.

[segnosaur]

Segno I apologize if I misrepresented any of your positions. Not my intent. Just debate. .

No problem. Its an on-line forum. People can have disagreements and be quite... forceful in expressing them.

In an article comparing the F35 which I will provide the reference for the two craft were compared.

air to ground: interdiction/penetration-F35, deep strike-tie

payload: F35 can carry more weapons

close air support: Gripen

air to ground support: F35

air to air: F35

beyond visual range: Gripen

within visual range: Gripen

dogfight: Gripen

air to air: Gripen

versatility/logistics: Gripen

source: http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/2014/09/jet-fighter-club-f-35-vs-gripen.html

I have actually seen that particular site before.

They certainly do make their case for the Gripen, but I found several issues with the article:

1) While it compares the ability of each plane, it doesn't really give any sort of weight to each of the factors... thus, 'dogfighting' is given equal weight to 'air to ground' abilities, even though air to ground attack (an area that your article says the F35 is better at) has traditionally been an area that our planes have been used more frequently

2) I would also question its accuracy in doing each of the comparisons... for example, it claims that the Gripen has an advantage in air-to-air combat because it can carry a Meteor missile, but they have begun to adapt the Meteor to the F35 as well. They also claim that the Gripen is faster/more maneouverable, but that may not be the case, if the F35 is using all-internal weapons. (External weapons introduce a certain amount of drag, which means your maximum speed will be less, and you won't be as maneuverable.) So, if the F35 is capable of carrying the same weapons as the Gripen, and can do so without it slowing the plane down (due to its internal bays) then the advantage by the Gripen isn't quite as assured

I would also question the Gripen's supposed superiority in Close air support. The F35 has been designed right from the start to allow it to work with other military equipment. Other planes often have to use external communication pods, and/or have the pilot communicate verbally with ground forces, which negatively affects its ability to work with troops on the ground.

The article also falsely mentions that "cold weather testing has yet to be done", yet the F35 has already started to undergo testing for extreme weather conditions, including sub-zero tests.

3) The article also doesn't mention one key advantage that the F35 has over the Gripen... The F35 will likely be manufactured for decades to come. Thus, if we need replacement craft or spare parts, we will be able to obtain them from the assembly line. The Gripen may be manufactured for a few more years (even a few more decades), but eventually production will end, and it will probably happen long before they stop making the F35. Thus, if we want to go with the Gripen, we would probably need to buy several more than just 65, so that we have spares. This would certainly negate much of its supposed cost advantages

Now, I'm not necessarily saying the Gripen is a bad plane. And in fact there are features that the Gripen has that really are clearly superior to the F35 (e.g. shorter runway requirements). The question is whether those advantages are more important than (for example) the greater combat radius, total weapons capacity, and expected production life that the F35 has. I personally don't think the advantages that the gripen has outweigh the advantages of the F35.

[waldo]

The F35 can handle the air-to-air missions that we would reasonably expect them to have to deal with, and its good at attacking targets on the ground, something that we also expect our planes to do.

what basis provides you the foundation to make such claims? If you're talking about close air support, ground attack/support, there's a reason the A-10 has not... and likely will not be retired as initially planned - the F-35 is claimed by many critics as simply no match for its capabilities. The debate has raged so far and wide and directly impacted upon U.S. military budgets/decision making, that the Pentagon has moved to initiate formal testing comparisons between the 2 planes... but these won't occur until 2018 - apparently, the F-35 won't be "ready until then" to presume on an equal level of comparison. Which, again, has me asking you to speak to just how you're making your claims - based on what?

[Derek 2.0]

If you're talking about close air support, ground attack/support, there's a reason the A-10 has not... and likely will not be retired as initially planned - the F-35 is claimed by many critics as simply no match for its capabilities.

The USAF's insistence on the A-10 retirement has been prevalent since the 80s (see proposed A-16 Falcon concept), and furthered by its performance in the First Gulf War, in which despite its stellar ability as a close support aircraft, its limitations in a less than permissive environment became known. Added to declining budgets for the last several decades, the A-10 has a big target on its back, as its the least versatile aircraft in the USAF's inventory.

The debate has raged so far and wide and directly impacted upon U.S. military budgets/decision making, that the Pentagon has moved to initiate formal testing comparisons between the 2 planes... but these won't occur until 2018 - apparently, the F-35 won't be "ready until then" to presume on an equal level of comparison. Which, again, has me asking you to speak to just how you're making your claims - based on what?

The debate all comes back to money, in that the USAF budget has been cut/frozen (like the other departments during this administration) and they have to decide between current and future funding priorities, and that calls into question the versatility of a given program......if US lawmakers found more money to keep the A-10 in service, without cutting something else, that's a good thing.......as there is no doubt the A-10 is very good at a limited numbers of roles, and if the money is there, there is no reason to not keep it operational in niche roles for decades to come, be that with the USAF, or full transfer to the various Air National Guard units.

To add, comparative testing isn't new (the A-10 on introduction did the like with the aging A-1E and the then new A-7), as all new platforms engage in such tests with legacy platforms, so end users can develop new operational doctrine for the new platforms.

[Rue]

Thanks for taking the time Segno. I respect your opinion and Derek's on this matter. You won't talk me out of the Gripen as no.1 choice and then the upgraded F18 as the second choice. I believe we are only talking F35 because if offers the biggest spin off benefit for employment in Canada not the best military capabilities we need. I appreciate MP's desperate to get employment in their ridings put the spin off benefits first and I think that has clouded everyone's judgment myself. That said I will tell you right now, I know Derek knows more about the issue than I and probably you too. To me this is a friendly debate and I side with Waldo not withstanding that weird alien avatar he uses.

Listen between you and me the aliens are here and no aircraft we have can stop them. Paul Hellyer (remember that fool?) said so and it must be true the X Files are back and Scully does not lie.

Edited January 14, 2016 by Rue

[Smallc]

So the USN is going to buy 16 more Super Hornets. They must be for the Blue Angels again.

[bush_cheney2004]

So the USN is going to buy 16 more Super Hornets. They must be for the Blue Angels again.

The USN can buy whatever it wants for mission needs....Congress will back them up with cash. Has nothing to do with the CF-18 replacement procurement fiasco in Canada.

Edited February 5, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

The USN can buy whatever it wants for mission needs....Congress will back them up with cash. Has nothing to do with the CF-18 replacement procurement fiasco in Canada.

We voted out that fiasco.

[Smallc]

The USN can buy whatever it wants for mission needs

Can I have, predictable but irrelevant responses for $400, Alex?

[Derek 2.0]

So the USN is going to buy 16 more Super Hornets. They must be for the Blue Angels again.

Source? If they purchase additional "Super Hornets", they will go to Fleet Replacement units as attrition reserves or the Blue Angels, as there are no USN legacy Hornet squadrons converting to Super Hornets.

[Smallc]

Source? If they purchase additional "Super Hornets", they will go to Fleet Replacement units as attrition reserves or the Blue Angels, as there are no USN legacy Hornet squadrons converting to Super Hornets.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-seeks-extra-f-35cs-and-fa-18s-in-new-budget-421628/

Now, if the F-35 weren't so late and so problem plagued, they wouldn't have to order both.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Smallc

[Topaz]

The website military today, has their top 10 picks as the best of jet fighters and the F-35 isn't on the list. http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/top_10_fighter_aircraft.htm

[Derek 2.0]

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-seeks-extra-f-35cs-and-fa-18s-in-new-budget-421628/

Now, if the F-35 weren't so late and so problem plagued, they wouldn't have to order both.

From your link:

On 3 February, during a tour of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in California, US defence secretary Ashton Carter confirmed the navy will request more F-35s and F/A-18s in next week's budget submission than previously planned. It will reportedly seek 10 more F-35Cs and 16 more F/A-18s over the next five years, as well as more F-35Bs for the marines.

I notice you forgot to mention additional F-35s.........

And more to the point:

The navy says its legacy Hornet fleet is aging out faster than it can be replaced through overuse in lengthy campaigns in the Middle East. Now, it is three squadrons or about 35 aircraft short of its fleet requirement, and there aren't enough aircraft available for training and to maintain pilot proficiency. Similar problems are faced by the US Marine Corps as its Hornets and AV-8B Harrier IIs wear down.

As I said, any additional aircraft will go to the fleet replacement squadrons......releasing legacy Hornets in said units, like the Blue Angels aircraft, to frontline units.

None the less, the USN won't operate the Super Hornet out to anywhere the same timeline as our Hornet replacements.....if we get them that is.

[Smallc]

As I said, they wouldn't be ordering any new Super Hornets, were it not for F-35 delays.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

As I said, they wouldn't be ordering any new Super Hornets, were it not for F-35 delays.

False.....the USN orders lots of replacement aircraft concurrent with the F-35 program. Canada doesn't do this, so perhaps it seems contradictory.

[Smallc]

False.....the USN orders lots of replacement aircraft concurrent with the F-35 program. Canada doesn't do this, so perhaps it seems contradictory.

The F-35 was supposed to be far further along at this point and in full scale production.

[bush_cheney2004]

The F-35 was supposed to be far further along at this point and in full scale production.

The U.S. and Australia have ordered more Super Hornets concurrent with F-35 development and low rate initial production (LRIP).

Canada can/will not do this. Canada's Hornet fleet just dwindles away without replacement.

[Derek 2.0]

As I said, they wouldn't be ordering any new Super Hornets, were it not for F-35 delays.

-Or- as stated in the article, the legacy Hornet lifespan was reduced by extended usage over the last 15 years, further compounded by Clinton era defense cuts, that cut the number of carrier strike fighter squadrons by 1/5th, increasing usage of existing aircraft.

Likewise, both reducing the number of carriers down to 12 (from 15), eliminating the designated training carrier without replacement and not funding the required life extensions of the then remaining Kitty Hawk class in the 1990s....all of which resulted in a shortage of carriers in the fleet, which in turn pushed back the initial carrier trials of the F-35C back several years, due to operational usage over the last 15 years of the carrier fleet.

[Topaz]

Should paint the F-35 yellow because I just read online the F-35 can shut down when the fuel gets too hot to carry out its function as a coolant. Very expensive lemon and dangerous for the pilot.

[bush_cheney2004]

Should paint the F-35 yellow.....

Many structural parts of aircraft are painted yellow or yellow-green, the color of zinc chromate primer. This applies to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as well.

Justin Trudeau's returning CF-18 aircraft from Syria might be painted yellow for a different reason.

Edited February 12, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Justin Trudeau's returning CF-18 aircraft from Syria might be painted yellow for a different reason.

Yep, and Trudeau should wear a brown suit lined with chicken feathers.

[On Guard for Thee]

The U.S. and Australia have ordered more Super Hornets concurrent with F-35 development and low rate initial production (LRIP).

Canada can/will not do this. Canada's Hornet fleet just dwindles away without replacement.

They've had/decided to do so because of the bomb truck delays. Even Frank Kendall gets that.

[Derek 2.0]

The U.S. and Australia have ordered more Super Hornets concurrent with F-35 development and low rate initial production (LRIP).

If the House Armed Services Committee grants a waiver to go down to 9 air wings, the USN's legacy Hornet shortages should be partially, if not fully, addressed.......

[waldo]

Justin Trudeau's returning CF-18 aircraft from Syria might be painted yellow for a different reason.

U.S. backs Canada’s new IS mission ahead of coalition meeting

NATO allies approve Canada’s retooled strategy against ISIS

Sajjan said Lt.-Gen. Sean MacFarland — the U.S. Army officer commanding the campaign against ISIS — told him that the Trudeau government’s plan to replace aerial bombing runs with beefed-up training efforts on the ground will help him better plan the next phases of the war, the centrepiece of which will likely be the step-by-step recapture of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city in the Kurdish north.

.