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

[Guest Derek L]

From his reply, it looks like that would be a No.

Exactly…………As I said about a month ago in the F-35 thread, I hope they hold a competition just to shut-up the Opposition…………..Now what will be good, is when they start costing the other aircraft and compare their total lifetime costs over 42 years………….

I’m sure you can appreciate what the cost of maintaining a Super Hornet or Eurofighter’s avionics will be out to ~2062, especially when the majority of operators will start retiring them around 2030.……

As for industrial offsets, well when the recently confirmed planned purchase of the F-35A (What we’ll be getting) by the USAF totals over 1700 aircraft, a figure considerably larger then the total production of the Super Hornet, Eurofighter, Rafale and Gripen combined, industrial offsets ultimately will land in the F-35’s favour……….Canadian industry won’t be producing material for Super Hornets, Eurofighter, Rafales already produced……………….Then there is the fact that production of the Super Hornet and Eurofighter will cease in a couple of years, and the Rafale line has been extended solely due to the Indian purchase……..

And another ace up the sleeve of the F-35/LockMart/DoD/US Government is the rumoured establishment of an F-35 training center within Canada…….I still think it will be in Cold Lake, but I’ve also heard Goose Bay, which seems a plausible rumour, what with the recent announcements of infrastructure upgrades to a namely empty, remote air force base………….A feat no other manufacturer, nor Government can match.

Regardless, said winner of the competition won’t be announced, nor a deal signed (As was planned all along) until after the next federal election………….At such time, the Eurofighter and Super Hornet lines will be closed.

The end result, we’ll still get the F-35 as planned, and the Government removed a potential political stick for the Opposition to continually misrepresent and whack the Tories with.

[bush_cheney2004]

Boeing wants to extend Super Bug production with engine upgrades, conformal tanks for added range, and even a Scan Eagle deployment pod. They see a window of opportunity to exploit while F-35 production ramps up. After that, only F-18G will be relevant as a first line asset.

[login]

I have the feeling drones will be more of a rage a few years from now...

Edited December 8, 2012 by login

[Wilber]

are you not paying attention? the military wanted a minimum 65 planes to be effective for our needs and that was when the price was claimed to be 9 billion, now rumors are the all-in cost will be between 40-45billion that 65 number is now a fantasy, this golden flying pig is dead...my guess is it's the super hornet...

And if the pig wins a competition and shows it can wipe the floor with the Super Hornet and its ilk? Do you think we should hang our future for the next 30 years on an aircraft that is already outclassed?

[Guest Derek L]

Boeing wants to extend Super Bug production with engine upgrades, conformal tanks for added range, and even a Scan Eagle deployment pod. They see a window of opportunity to exploit while F-35 production ramps up. After that, only F-18G will be relevant as a first line asset.

I know, but the USN/Pentagon told them to fill their boots on development of a Super-Duper Bug, for the Government won’t be funding it……..As to the Growler, well I’m sure they’ll find employment into the 2030s , until replaced by a UCAV/6th gen aircraft, but it’s telling that Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children won’t be replacing their Prowlers with the EA-18, instead opting for the EW suite incorporated into the baseline F-35B.

[bush_cheney2004]

I know, but the USN/Pentagon told them to fill their boots on development of a Super-Duper Bug, for the Government won’t be funding it…

Right....my point being that's where bargain hunters like Canada come in. Boeing wants the F-18 Super Bug to become an F-5 Tiger on steroids for the mid and lower end market, hoping that sticker shock for first line offerings send many customers its way.

…..As to the Growler, well I’m sure they’ll find employment into the 2030s , until replaced by a UCAV/6th gen aircraft, but it’s telling that Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children won’t be replacing their Prowlers with the EA-18, instead opting for the EW suite incorporated into the baseline F-35B.

Growlers actually keep Boeing in production because there is a production schedule below which they cannot make money. US Navy buys will end.

Edited December 8, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[login]

Bush Cheney, if you were Canada would you go for the Arrow II?

[bush_cheney2004]

Nope...look how Arrow #1 turned out.

[login]

Nope...look how Arrow #1 turned out.

The 5th and 6th generation models are quite a bit better

http://www.facebook....402158416505160

What it turned into the US jet fighter program?

Over 49,000 direct and 175,000 indirect jobs, 95% Canadian content, Canadian proprietary IP, job-driven academic streaming starting in High School coupled with focuse...

d R&D technology commercialization opportunities for Canadian universities and colleges, over 600 Canadian companies to be listed in the supply chains

It hasn't turned out Bush Cheney it is still going...

Edited December 8, 2012 by login

[bush_cheney2004]

The 5th and 6th generation models are quite a bit better

http://www.facebook....402158416505160

What it turned into the US jet fighter program?

No....the Avro Arrow was already obsolete before going into production. The Americans actually helped in its design and prototype development. In the end, even Canada wouldn't buy it.

It hasn't turned out Bush Cheney it is still going...

Try getting SAR helicopters right before building high performance military aircraft.

[login]

No....the Avro Arrow was already obsolete before going into production. The Americans actually helped in its design and prototype development. In the end, even Canada wouldn't buy it.

Try getting SAR helicopters right before building high performance military aircraft.

I don't know why you are saying it is dead when it is still being improved and developed. I'm not sure if you are aware but it was the Canadian built Arrow that americans used as a basis for their own defence systems.

Canada has SAR helicopters.. although I think creating airship routes that serve as air defence, transport and SAR are a better option than helicopters, that and some lighter than air aircraft (light airframe low cost ultralights.

Just SAR is not a solution you have to build in economy to the plans. Otherwise you are just flushing money down the toilet.

You don't want SAR you want multirole combat and police helicopters that can also function in SAR.. you don't want "just SAR" that is a waste of money.

You station these around areas put on a float and you are good for under $15,000

Rotor Hawk Falcon Gyroplane

Of course you build them via a Canadian crown corporation... at less than the cost of buying 3 or 4 high costing SAR helicopters.

You can get 200 of them or more station them throuthough canadian compunities...

Train park rangers and other emergency officials to fly the things... put in electronics as required like Infared sensors, motion detection, heater etc.. (but low cost options)

http://www.gyrosaway...uyers-guide.php

and before you laugh

"Over 1,000 autogyros worldwide are used by authorities for military and law enforcement"

It is tough fiscal times so you need fiscal restraint, its not time to go out and buy multi million dollar helicopters that save 10 people a year.

http://www.gyrosaway.com/FAQ's.htm

although getting something with jump takeoff capacity is good.

now bear in mind you might need a tandem area, but either they are alive or they are not. there are low cost mods available. But building multi use gyros is a much better option than buying "SAR helicopters" and it would be great if it was done all in Canada by the government itself. They could even sell commercial variants as a bonus to taxpayers.

If they expanded "landing zone areas, gyros would be a great advantage to mid distance travel. no windy roads.

Although the CF plan is here

http://www.tpsgc-pwg...-rscfw-eng.html

Bottom line though you can build a whole lot of gyrocopters for 800 million dollars. (800 million was the cost for 15 comorants)

Here is another forum discussing gyros for SAR

http://www.rotaryfor...ead.php?t=25909

---- GOOD ONE---

Edited December 8, 2012 by login

[Big Guy]

We are looking at a fighter aircraft that would be fully operational in about 15 years. The rate at which technology is advancing, we should be looking at drones and other remote robots. Already the pilot is obsolete and “dead” weight in an airplane. Too much of fighter airplane technology is dedicated to keeping that “piece of meat” intact and alive – this is a waste of weight and material. I think we are looking at the wrong specs.

[login]

We are looking at a fighter aircraft that would be fully operational in about 15 years. The rate at which technology is advancing, we should be looking at drones and other remote robots. Already the pilot is obsolete and “dead” weight in an airplane. Too much of fighter airplane technology is dedicated to keeping that “piece of meat” intact and alive – this is a waste of weight and material. I think we are looking at the wrong specs.

I'd still prefer atleast one human for escort and intercept... especially if the inbound is only potentially hostile. It would suck for an android to start a war, or kill people it wasn't suppose to.

Bombing missions are a different issue as are actual air defence operations.

lots of stuff will benefit from androids if they actually rolled out the tech, they don't want to to a large extent it has been scuttled for 10 years... (it is too game changing)... but they are getting better with human brain reproduction via computers now.

Bush_cheney

If I havn't convinced you on the gyros (which could be turned into a drone with low cost sensors and a low cost microcomputer (and/or radio communications to a mainframe for nonsensitive work including remote streaming via radiowave)

This video should convince you it is well worth the money

Edited December 8, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

Right....my point being that's where bargain hunters like Canada come in. Boeing wants the F-18 Super Bug to become an F-5 Tiger on steroids for the mid and lower end market, hoping that sticker shock for first line offerings send many customers its way.

I doubt it will happen, there’s a reason why aside from the RAAF’s small buy, the USN is the sole user………It’s an expensive, complex, twin engine modern combat aircraft……..For a standalone purchase of 24 Super Bugs (with 20 years support), the Australians paid nearly 7 billion dollars……

Now with the RAAF purchase as a rough baseline for a Canadian purchase of 65 aircraft with ~35-40 years support, you’d get:

24 Super Hornets x 2.7 = 64.8 “Canadian Super Hornets”

Australian contract of 7 billion x 2.7 = 18.9 billion for 20 years

18.9 billion x 2 = 37.8 billion for 40 years

Of course, that doesn’t take into account Canada purchasing the Super Hornets after the line has closed down, and Canada operating them 2-3 decades further into the century after the Americans and Australians retire them………..Nor does it include some future “upgrade program” to our Super Hornet fleet, an upgrade that unlike our recent upgrade of our current Hornet fleet, won’t be able to “borrow” from developments in a larger American upgrade…………

As I’ve said, a comparison, as I’ve been going on about for months (over a year?), will illustrate that supporting a bastard fleet of 4th generation aircraft past the middle of the century will be more costly than the F-35.

[Guest Derek L]

I doubt it will happen, there’s a reason why aside from the RAAF’s small buy, the USN is the sole user………It’s an expensive, complex, twin engine modern combat aircraft……..For a standalone purchase of 24 Super Bugs (with 20 years support), the Australians paid nearly 7 billion dollars……

Now with the RAAF purchase as a rough baseline for a Canadian purchase of 65 aircraft with ~35-40 years support, you’d get:

24 Super Hornets x 2.7 = 64.8 “Canadian Super Hornets”

Australian contract of 7 billion x 2.7 = 18.9 billion for 20 years

18.9 billion x 2 = 37.8 billion for 40 years

Of course, that doesn’t take into account Canada purchasing the Super Hornets after the line has closed down, and Canada operating them 2-3 decades further into the century after the Americans and Australians retire them………..Nor does it include some future “upgrade program” to our Super Hornet fleet, an upgrade that unlike our recent upgrade of our current Hornet fleet, won’t be able to “borrow” from developments in a larger American upgrade…………

As I’ve said, a comparison, as I’ve been going on about for months (over a year?), will illustrate that supporting a bastard fleet of 4th generation aircraft past the middle of the century will be more costly than the F-35.

And one more thing to note for both a F-35/Super Hornet................~40 billion over 40 years equals 1 billion a year.........or to contrast, 5% of DND's budget.....small potatoes for a modern air force.

[bush_cheney2004]

...As I’ve said, a comparison, as I’ve been going on about for months (over a year?), will illustrate that supporting a bastard fleet of 4th generation aircraft past the middle of the century will be more costly than the F-35.

I think we agree that the F-18 E/F platform is a stop-gap but nevertheless dead end move for the out years. People gotta remember that Super Hornets were developed as a Band-Aid to the loss of the A-12 program over 20 years ago. The F-35 naval variant fills that void with a proper strike fighter/bomber.

[bush_cheney2004]

And one more thing to note for both a F-35/Super Hornet................~40 billion over 40 years equals 1 billion a year.........or to contrast, 5% of DND's budget.....small potatoes for a modern air force.

The CBC's budget is greater than that.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know why you are saying it is dead when it is still being improved and developed. I'm not sure if you are aware but it was the Canadian built Arrow that americans used as a basis for their own defence systems.

No, that is nonsense. The Americans helped AVRO tweak the design with wind tunnel testing at Langely. The Americans also provided Nike rockets for mach+ testing of scaled shapes. Canada didn't even have an engine, so the Americans provided one while the Orenda Iroquois languished in development, with the help of an American B-47 test bed, of course.

Gyrocopters are not rated for all-weather missions.

Stop being so cheap.....

Edited December 8, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

The CBC's budget is greater than that.

And when you adjust for inflation, include the purchase price and the recent upgrades, so is operating our current Hornet fleet with a Conversion Squadron.

[tommg6]

I don't understand why some people are against the purchase? Canada needs replacements, its simple as that.

[login]

No, that is nonsense. The Americans helped AVRO tweak the design with wind tunnel testing at Langely. The Americans also provided Nike rockets for mach+ testing of scaled shapes. Canada didn't even have an engine, so the Americans provided one while the Orenda Iroquois languished in development, with the help of an American B-47 test bed, of course.

Gyrocopters are not rated for all-weather missions.

Stop being so cheap.....

I've read otherwise the Arrow was piecemealed and sent to the US for use in their rocket program.

Hawker Siddeley Group, produced several axial-flow jet engines which were license-produced by US manufacturers, especially for US Navy use where they were probably more British engines flying than American

The technology transfer went from the British to the Americans not the otherway around...

http://www.avroarrow...ancellation.htm

Fact is Canadians don't need American junk when they can make their own and employ Canadians rather than flushing their earnings down the toilet so American execs can benefit.

The Arrow flys faster and higher, than the F35 (and potentially even the raptor....)\

American jets raptor and f35 can't even fly as high as the Arrow... and the arrow can outrun them.. 50 years later!

If Canada had the US research budget we'd all be able to fly to alpha centauri today.

... F-106, while not comparable to the performance of the Arrow, would be good enough for US purposes. They further stated that they felt the Arrow would be too much more expensive than the F-106 based on a dollars per pound of airframe assumption if the Arrow weighed twice as much as the F-106,...

The Raptor's main task is to get air superiority, while the JSF's main task is to attack ground targets

Edited December 8, 2012 by login

[bush_cheney2004]

I've read otherwise the Arrow was piecemealed and sent to the US for use in their rocket program.

No....Arrow models were launched on (American) Nike rockets for supersonic evaluation.

The technology transfer went from the British to the Americans not the otherway around...

Canada is not the U.K.

Fact is Canadians don't need American junk when they can make their own and employ Canadians rather than flushing their earnings down the toilet so American execs can benefit.

Sure...see Avro Arrow !

The Arrow flys faster and higher, than the F35 (and potentially even the raptor....)\

Only in your dreams...Arrows no longer exist. Canada destroyed them.

American jets raptor and f35 can't even fly as high as the Arrow... and the arrow can outrun them.. 50 years later!

The U.S. was retiring faster and higher "Century series" designs before the Arrow ever made it to production. Oh wait, Arrow was never in production. Even Canada wouldn't buy them.

If Canada had the US research budget we'd all be able to fly to alpha centauri today.

Well, at least you have "free" health care.

[DogOnPorch]

The Arrow only had one job, login. Shooting the low yield Genie missile at incoming Soviet bombers. Now those same bombers can do lazy-8s well away from their targets thanks to the introduction of reliable cruise missile technology.

[DogOnPorch]

The U.S. was retiring faster and higher "Century series" designs before the Arrow ever made it to production. Oh wait, Arrow was never in production. Even Canada wouldn't buy them.

My old boss flew them for the California National Guard. Fast!

[Argus]

I don't understand why some people are against the purchase? Canada needs replacements, its simple as that.

Because the opposition and the media don't want us spending a lot of money on the military. The whole reason we are dealing with, not the price of these aircraft, but the total operational cost of them over 35 odd years, including the pilots uniforms and dental care, is so that the larger number will outrage more people and create more political damage for the government. It's like you being presented with a bill for $150,000 to buy a Ford Focus. Your eyes get a lot bigger and you hesitate. That's why the total life price is the only one ever used by the media and opposition. Neither will ever suggest (except some of the NDP) that we don't need to buy new aircraft, but they want to damage the government as much as possible when they buy something.