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

[GostHacked]

Navy's don't seem to have a problem flying single engine AC over oceans. What makes the arctic so different? There is no such thing as a cheap fighter aircraft that is worth having.

Lots of area to cover that is not populated and very few airbases to operate out of in the north. The requirement for two engines is because of that. The chance of two engines failing at the same time are very low. So if one fails, the pilot can still get back to base. With one engine, the plane goes down and we risk more lives with a search and rescue plan.

The US Navy has many many air strips and carriers. A lot more places to land if something goes wrong with the aircraft.

[eyeball]

We've had the F-35 debate over and over already. What aircraft would you suggest for the replacement for the F-18 if any?

I suggest Canada discuss the 'if any' option you've proposed.

[Wilber]

Lots of area to cover that is not populated and very few airbases to operate out of in the north. The requirement for two engines is because of that. The chance of two engines failing at the same time are very low. So if one fails, the pilot can still get back to base. With one engine, the plane goes down and we risk more lives with a search and rescue plan.

Multiple engine failures are more likely in fighter aircraft simply because the engines are mounted right beside each other. One goes boom, there is a good chance it will take out the other.

The US Navy has many many air strips and carriers. A lot more places to land if something goes wrong with the aircraft.

If you are at 30,000 ft, in an airliner, unless that air strip is within 100 miles, you aren't going to make it. I doubt the average fighter has a glide ratio that is anywhere near as good. I can't imagine any pilot trying to make a dead stick landing on a carrier. They would eject first.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Wilber

[DogOnPorch]

US officials convinced Canada to abandon the Avro project because of missile technology was touted to make fighter aircraft obsolete. Perhaps it was a ploy from the US to kill a plane they knew would give them a run for their money. Can't have anyone else entering the arms industry.

It was a stupid move and if we had gone through Avro would be a household name for aircraft. The Avro Arrow was a fantastic plane, and their next generation of plane would be even better. A total waste.

The Arrow was to have one job and one job only...against a threat most here have discounted...doing it via atomic weapons right over our heads. The Voodoo was already on station making the Arrow a redundancy from day one. Why build the same aircraft twice? Hey...we're Canada...lol.

Navy's don't seem to have a problem flying single engine AC over oceans. What makes the arctic so different? There is no such thing as a cheap fighter aircraft that is worth having.

For sure. More engines on aircraft has everything to do with performance rather than safety.

[DogOnPorch]

I suggest Canada discuss the 'if any' option you've proposed.

I think we need to be able to meet our NATO (and NORAD) requirements and then some. Those who think reality isn't a giant game of Risk can muse about that from the trenches of some future Somme or Verdun.

[waldo]

I think we need to be able to meet our NATO (and NORAD) requirements and then some.

as before, those requirements aren't explicitly defined... Mexico seems to do just fine without them. The transport option has been mentioned in the past. Other than projecting no-fly zones or dropping occasional bombs here and there, just what "strike fighter/air superiority" role has Canada found for its CF-18s in the past?

.

[GostHacked]

Multiple engine failures are more likely in fighter aircraft simply because the engines are mounted right beside each other. One goes boom, there is a good chance it will take out the other.

If it goes boom, you got more than engine problems. An engine failure does not always result in an explosion.

If you are at 30,000 ft, in an airliner, unless that air strip is within 100 miles, you aren't going to make it. I doubt the average fighter has a glide ratio that is anywhere near as good. I can't imagine any pilot trying to make a dead stick landing on a carrier. They would eject first.

Most airliners have more than one engine for very obvious reasons. Many can glide decently. Fighter aircraft not so much.

[GostHacked]

The Arrow was to have one job and one job only...against a threat most here have discounted...doing it via atomic weapons right over our heads. The Voodoo was already on station making the Arrow a redundancy from day one. Why build the same aircraft twice? Hey...we're Canada...lol.

Why do we need the F-35 again? We already have CF-18s on station making the yet-to-be-delivered-overpriced F-35 kind of irrelevant. If we go with your analogy.

For sure. More engines on aircraft has everything to do with performance rather than safety.

It's a bit of both.

[waldo]

further to the earlier reference where U.S. General Michael Hostage, head of air combat command in the U.S, went "off script" --- "F-35 ‘irrelevant’ without accompanying F-22 jet as support"

But in an interview with the Air Force Times, published in February, Hostage pointed out the F-35 needs to work hand-in-hand with the F-22. “The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform,” Hostage said. “It needs the F-22.”

Just Face It - The F-35 Is A "Bomb Truck"

[waldo]

from the POGO U.S. government oversight group that I've regularly drawn from in the past:

U.S. budgetary sequestration is showing through in direct ways as evidenced by the following account of the U.S. Pentagon's FY2015 budget pursuit. Interestingly actual dollars don't really seem to be impacted (go figure!) and, of course, the Pentagon always has creative access to it's secondary non-budget related 'war funding' outlet. About the U.S. Navy wanting out, that requested "3-year break" from the F-35 seems to manifest itself quite well within this budget review:

Also included in this year’s wish list are two F-35s for the Air Force—an aircraft program that is over budget, behind schedule, and has repeatedly failed to meet key performance goals. The Air Force was originally expected to request thirty F-35s in FY 2015, but cut the purchase by four aircraft, two of which made their way onto the wish list.

While the Air Force’s F-35 request was marginally reduced, the Navy significantly cut its planned purchases of the F-35. Over the five years covered in the budget request, the Navy is proposing procuring thirty-three fewer F-35s than originally planned. More significant, though, is the fact that the Navy is only proposing acquiring two F-35s in FY 2015.

Earlier this year, an unnamed congressional source told Politico that the Navy had requested a three-year pause in acquisition of the F-35. While the Navy’s request was reportedly denied by the office of the Secretary of Defense, it seems the service may be getting its way nonetheless: According to Pentagon budget planners, if Congress doesn’t relax the Budget Control Act’s statutory spending caps, then the Navy will indeed get a two-year break from the F-35.

[bush_cheney2004]

from the POGO U.S. government oversight group that I've regularly drawn from in the past:

Of course, as this continues the relentless dependence on U.S. sources throughout this debate. Maybe Canada should buy a replacement aircraft based on Canadian requirements, not American.

[Wilber]

If it goes boom, you got more than engine problems. An engine failure does not always result in an explosion.

True, they can be systems related but fighter aircraft tend to have more uncontained failures simply because of the way they are used and abused compared to civil aircraft. That is why 10,000 hrs is considered a long life for a fighter. I flew a 737 a few times near the end of its life that had over 70,000 hrs.

Most airliners have more than one engine for very obvious reasons. Many can glide decently. Fighter aircraft not so much.

Still, that does not discourage navies from operating single engine aircraft off carriers in the middle of oceans.

[bush_cheney2004]

Still, that does not discourage navies from operating single engine aircraft off carriers in the middle of oceans.

Or air forces operating in the north, as in the case of the F-16 Falcon (over 4,000 built).

[Wilber]

Or air forces operating in the north, as in the case of the F-16 Falcon (over 4,000 built).

Quite so. Eielson AFB in Fairbanks has been an F-16 base for decades. The Norwegian Airforce also operates F-16's.

[eyeball]

I think we need to be able to meet our NATO (and NORAD) requirements and then some. Those who think reality isn't a giant game of Risk can muse about that from the trenches of some future Somme or Verdun.

As opposed to musing about it from the comfort of some general's or politician's office thousands of miles from the action?

I think we need to revisit our need for military alliances, not to mention politicians and generals.

[On Guard for Thee]

US officials convinced Canada to abandon the Avro project because of missile technology was touted to make fighter aircraft obsolete. Perhaps it was a ploy from the US to kill a plane they knew would give them a run for their money. Can't have anyone else entering the arms industry.

It was a stupid move and if we had gone through Avro would be a household name for aircraft. The Avro Arrow was a fantastic plane, and their next generation of plane would be even better. A total waste.

You may recall not so far back when the F35 issue was making lots of headlines Lewis Mackenzie suggested we should re-engine and re-guage the Arrow. I think he was actually serious but of course it never got off the ground (pardon the pun)

[DogOnPorch]

Why do we need the F-35 again? We already have CF-18s on station making the yet-to-be-delivered-overpriced F-35 kind of irrelevant. If we go with your analogy.

It's a bit of botH

There's this little club called NATO that we belong to that, on occasion, demands mutual co-operation of its members.

[DogOnPorch]

You may recall not so far back when the F35 issue was making lots of headlines Lewis Mackenzie suggested we should re-engine and re-guage the Arrow. I think he was actually serious but of course it never got off the ground (pardon the pun)

MacKenzie...an Army general.

[bush_cheney2004]

There's this little club called NATO that we belong to that, on occasion, demands mutual co-operation of its members.

Well that's not fair...why should Canada have to spend money on capable aircraft with NATO compatible comms, nav, IFF, fire control, weapons load, etc. when somebody else could do it ? Canada could provide NATO and NORAD with safe needle injection sites instead...much cheaper !

[DogOnPorch]

Well that's not fair...why should Canada have to spend money on capable aircraft with NATO compatible comms, nav, IFF, fire control, weapons load, etc. when somebody else could do it ? Canada could provide NATO and NORAD with safe needle injection sites instead...much cheaper !

The story of Canada is Homer's phrase: "Can't somebody else do it?" It stems from our national inferiority complex...that is:

Canada can't do it because we're...

a] too small

b] too big

c] too incapable

d] next to the USA

e] peace brokers

f] not boat rockers

g] your quip here

[waldo]

Of course, as this continues the relentless dependence on U.S. sources throughout this debate.

yes, POGO is an American source! A long-standing American resource with oversight over the U.S. government... my latest reference keying on the Pentagon and the effect U.S. sequestration budgetary initiatives have had on the U.S. military budget.

other than you continuing your MLW legendary trolling over U.S. sources being used "for anything"!!!, if you're aware of a Canadian source that provides oversight review/information on the U.S. government and the Pentagon, please advise - thanks in advance.

[bush_cheney2004]

...other than you continuing your MLW legendary trolling over U.S. sources being used "for anything"!!!, if you're aware of a Canadian source that provides oversight review/information on the U.S. government and the Pentagon, please advise - thanks in advance.

Not sure why you would need sources for U.S. budgets and procurements, unless you think that America is going to choose and buy Canada's replacement "jets". Shouldn't there be at least a smidgen of "Canadian content" in such sources, reflecting Canadian requirements and costs ?

Let me check...yep...as I thought...this is the 'Federal Politics' area for Canada, not the USA, which certainly has not "cancelled" the F-35 program. The Americans have already spent more money that you can even imagine, and they will spend more.

Is there a dearth of information sources for Canada's military procurements? Is there an "information gap" ? Would you like help in finding such sources ?

[On Guard for Thee]

Multiple engine failures are more likely in fighter aircraft simply because the engines are mounted right beside each other. One goes boom, there is a good chance it will take out the other.

Having had the experience I was quite happy to be able to limp home on the other engine. They build scatter shields between engines to prevent just what you have suggested. And as someone else suggested on here, you have to replace the engine, not the whole airplane, and SAR costs.

[waldo]

Not sure why you would need sources for U.S. budgets and procurements

duh! As goes the U.S. deployment (or not) of the F-35, so goes the program. Is that so beyond your reach? It's only been one of the consistent themes throughout the many F-35 related threads. But, of course, you know this... you absolutely know this. But why let reality get in the way of another opportunity for you to troll over someone having the audacity to use/reference a U.S. source.

not that many posts back you were trumpeting the USN's emphatic adoption of the program. You were doing so in spite of the many, many past examples provided of exactly the opposite... examples where USN leaders at the highest levels either offered direct criticism of the program or the plane/related tech. Clearly, you took exception to that POGO sourced quote; to me highlighting the USN reference within that quote. The one reinforcing the points made previously that the USN wants nothing to do with its F-35 variant, the one being forced on the USN... that the USN wants out and doesn't want to take on any of the 'flying turkeys'. Yes, you took such exception to that source, to that quote, you reverted to what you do best!

oh ya, Go Navy!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

duh! As goes the U.S. deployment (or not) of the F-35, so goes the program. Is that so beyond your reach? It's only been one of the consistent themes throughout the many F-35 related threads.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program has existed for many years and has broad support from the US Congress because of district spending. Whatever Canada decides to do with yet another fiasco defense procurement will have little if any impact on the "program", save for the loss of a minor Tier 3 player and related subcontracts.

The F-35 program is not "cancelled" for the rest of the JSF world. Over 100 total units of all three variants have been produced. Partner nations are taking delivery with crews training in the U.S., just as planned.

The only "Duh!" here is deserved by the relentless wannabe parroting of American defense procurements and production schedules as if they have anything whatsoever to do with Canada's typically stalled procurement decision, now back at square zero because of the usual political infighting and contract debacles that Canada is famous for.

As for the USN, I don't care what it decides to do for replacement strike aircraft, and again, that has nothing to do with Canada's stalled procurement. Canada ended up buying the USN's decision last time anyway.

Edited March 9, 2014 by bush_cheney2004