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

[ASIP]

A friendly reminder of what ? That Canada refers to the U.S. designed and built F/A-18 Hornet by both CF-18 and CF-188 ? Or is it a reminder that U.S. based contractors upgraded and maintain such aircraft ? Or is it a reminder that Canada buys ordnance and laser guided munitions from the U.S. for such aircraft and qualify on U.S. ranges? Or is it a reminder that such aircraft became so obsolete that they were incompatible with NATO standards for secure data comms (Link 16) and IFF ? Or is it a reminder that Canada didn't have enough CF-18 laser designator pods during the Kosovo War ? Or is it a reminder that Canada could not sustain deployment of a CF-18 squadron to Afghanistan ?

Thanks for the friendly reminder.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=contract-signed-for-cf-18-advanced-multi-role-infrared-sensor/hnps1tln

This a reminder that there is no CF-188 designation in Canadian Forces. Officially Canadian military aircraft are designated with two letters and three digits with not dash between them. For dilettantes ("Canada refers") using CF-18 is normal, as it is a jargon of professionals.

[bush_cheney2004]

This a reminder that there is no CF-188 designation in Canadian Forces. Officially Canadian military aircraft are designated with two letters and three digits with not dash between them. For dilettantes ("Canada refers") using CF-18 is normal, as it is a jargon of professionals.

Then perhaps you should probably give the same "friendly reminder" to the Royal Canadian Air Force:

The CF-188 is a multipurpose, high-performance twin-engine fighter that can handle both air-to-air (air defence, air superiority, combat air patrol) and air-to-ground (close air support, battlefield air interdiction) combat. Its on-board computer systems can quickly be re-programmed to the mission at hand.

(Note: The CF-188 is officially designated the “CF188” in Canadian use, although mainly in official or technical documentation.)

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-current/cf-188.page

[ASIP]

Then perhaps you should probably give the same "friendly reminder" to the Royal Canadian Air Force:

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-current/cf-188.page

I see, you get your knowledge from internet...

In real life this is DND gives sometimes not friendly reminder to contractors how its aircraft should be referred to.

[bush_cheney2004]

I see, you get your knowledge from internet...

In real life this is DND gives sometimes not friendly reminder to contractors how its aircraft should be referred to.

...and I see that your DND gets it tactical aircraft from the United States. That will include the "CF135".

In real life, your friendly reminder has been shown to be a needless distraction that contributes nothing to this thread.

It's not even original, having been discussed here in other topics...years ago.

Edited June 2, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

That's only the modernized ones. And BTW, your range numbers are way off.

The only operational ones (or those even capable of operating) are the modernized ones.

Btw, my combat radius numbers are quite exact.

[On Guard for Thee]

The only operational ones (or those even capable of operating) are the modernized ones.

Btw, my combat radius numbers are quite exact.

Oh well you quoted range. Combat radius is something quite different.

[waldo]

You do understand that this is how development and testing processes work, right? The F-35 has now been certified for multiple air to air engagements, and is filling conversion squadrons as we speak. Orders are starting to come in, non parter air forces are investigating the aircraft, and costs are falling in line.

you've clearly shown you have no real understanding of the distinct variants, their actual respective developments, LRIP retrofit requirements, the real status of testing, significant outstanding problems (those that are even allowed to be identified), true costs, actual representative schedules/delivery, what IOC actually is... and the trumped up nature of it (your so-called "conversion squadrons), etc.. Conversion squadrons with, essentially, prototypes, hey! Just what is this "certified" you're speaking to - specifically? As for orders "coming in", care to table the numbers of the initial commitments made by JSF partner countries as compared to the significantly lowered numbers now being spoken of by those initial partners? What actual formal orders... with money exchanged? Why were these initial commitment numbers cut so dramatically?

[Smallc]

Oh well you quoted range. Combat radius is something quite different.

I never did such a thing, and in all cases, the F-35 in terms of distance and speed with load is the superior performer.

[waldo]

I never did such a thing

uhhh...

Btw, my combat radius numbers are quite exact.

[Smallc]

If you're going to be sarcastic you should at least read.

[On Guard for Thee]

...and I see that your DND gets it tactical aircraft from the United States. That will include the "CF135".

In real life, your friendly reminder has been shown to be a needless distraction that contributes nothing to this thread.

It's not even original, having been discussed here in other topics...years ago.

And I see your Navy has cut it's 2015 budget for F 35's from 69 to 36 and added 22 Growlers. As well Australlia is considering doubling it's order for Super Hornets. I guess all that "bad press" the F 35 is acquiring is starting to sink in. Now as long as Stephen Harper is paying attention.

[bush_cheney2004]

The table was set long ago, starting with a Liberal government. Canada will procure the F-35 because:

The F-35 has been designed on 3 levels: operational, industrial, and political. The tiered partnership model created initial commitments by member governments, and a sub-contracting model that spread industrial benefits among committed partners was designed to create constituencies that would lobby for the F-35′s selection and production.

That approach has generally worked. It isn’t a coincidence that these industrial benefits have been the main defense used by Canadian governments whenever the F-35 purchase has been questioned, even though any other winner would also have to commit to a similar sort of arrangement. Existing recipients of public money will always fight harder, because the beneficiaries of any switch are only potential winners, who haven’t made big commitments that would be painful to undo. This political engineering approach saved the Dutch F-35 buy in the face of determined political opposition, even though the plane’s cost is forcing them to cut their planned fighter fleet by almost 2/3. Canada seems headed for a similar fate....

F-35 > Canada's Industrial Partners

[waldo]

If you're going to be sarcastic you should at least read.

not being sarcastic... and I did read you provide range numbers, while following up with (as quoted) you speaking to them as "combat radius numbers". As was pointed out to you, 'one of these is not like the other'!

[waldo]

And I see your Navy has cut it's 2015 budget for F 35's from 69 to 36 and added 22 Growlers. As well Australlia is considering doubling it's order for Super Hornets. I guess all that "bad press" the F 35 is acquiring is starting to sink in. Now as long as Stephen Harper is paying attention.

which is completely in line with past comments/positioning coming form the highest ranks of the USN. Clearly, given a choice, the USN wants nothing to do with the F-35 and their variant. Of course, all those past comments were quickly "massaged" and the party ranks quickly came forward to provide (false) assurances that the USN was "committed" to the F-35.

[Smallc]

not being sarcastic... and I did read you provide range numbers, while following up with (as quoted) you speaking to them as "combat radius numbers". As was pointed out to you, 'one of these is not like the other'!

I provided only combat radius numbers, the numbers that are useful for a combat aircraft. In all categories that involve distance that can be flown, the F-35 is superior.

[Smallc]

And I see your Navy has cut it's 2015 budget for F 35's from 69 to 36 and added 22 Growlers. As well Australlia is considering doubling it's order for Super Hornets. I guess all that "bad press" the F 35 is acquiring is starting to sink in. Now as long as Stephen Harper is paying attention.

Australia considered that, and instead bought 58 Lightnings.

They are now also considering an early replacement of their F/A-18F models with F-35B models they they can use on their new jump jet carriers...and as a result I'm jealous. That's what happens when you spend the needed money I suppose.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Smallc

[Smallc]

It's also worth nothing that the E/A-18 models being procured by the navy are a replacement of prowlers, and not earlier budgeted F-35C purchases. Any cuts in F-35C procurement by the navy comes as a result of sequestration, and not some mythical shunning of the said naval variant.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's also worth nothing that the E/A-18 models being procured by the navy are a replacement of prowlers, and not earlier budgeted F-35C purchases. Any cuts in F-35C procurement by the navy comes as a result of sequestration, and not some mythical shunning of the said naval variant.

There is nothing mythical about the problems with the F35. Thr HUD helmet doesn't work, cracks in turbine blades, the fueldraulics are a fire hazard, ejection seat doesn't work. delamination of flight surfaces, or basically, chunks falling off in flight. Wouldn't give me a lot of confidence. I think the budget constraints "sequestration" is actually providing a type of "bail out " package.

[waldo]

I provided only combat radius numbers, the numbers that are useful for a combat aircraft.

no, again... you labeled the number "range". Range and combat radius are, obviously, not the same thing. You stated:

... Now let's move on to range:

F-35: 1080 km on internal fuel...

[Smallc]

I used that word in error. Regardless, in all distance categories, the F-35 is superior.

[Smallc]

There is nothing mythical about the problems with the F35. Thr HUD helmet doesn't work, cracks in turbine blades, the fueldraulics are a fire hazard, ejection seat doesn't work. delamination of flight surfaces, or basically, chunks falling off in flight. Wouldn't give me a lot of confidence. I think the budget constraints "sequestration" is actually providing a type of "bail out " package.

Every problem encountered has been or is being fixed. This is quite normal for cutting edge new development aircraft.

[On Guard for Thee]

Every problem encountered has been or is being fixed. This is quite normal for cutting edge new development aircraft.

Except the problems keep cropping up, and they're serious. Just look at the numbers in terms of the cost overruns and the delays. Unprecedented. The basic idea that you can build one airplane that does everything well, while a great concept. certainly does not exist anywhere near the F35.

[Smallc]

So were the problems with the 787. So were the problems with the A380, a decade older in development terms than the F-35. Ditto the A400M, the (shock) F-18, CH-148, the Merlin, V-22, and on and on. Every new aircraft - especially those at the cutting edge - has these problems. The F-35 will outlive these problems and will likely excel. The development stories now are far more good than bad.

[waldo]

The development stories now are far more good than bad.

ya, ya... the LockMart propaganda machine is running full-out!

[On Guard for Thee]

So were the problems with the 787. So were the problems with the A380, a decade older in development terms than the F-35. Ditto the A400M, the (shock) F-18, CH-148, the Merlin, V-22, and on and on. Every new aircraft - especially those at the cutting edge - has these problems. The F-35 will outlive these problems and will likely excel. The development stories now are far more good than bad.

Well just check when the first flight of the F 18 was and then when it went into service. Or the 787 or the 380. As I said the F35 "teething" problems are "unprecedented" and they just won't go away. Recently it turns out the Chineese have software that "busts" the F 35. Oops.