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

[Smallc]

Well, it happens quite regularly. Witness southern Alberta air show footage from a few years ago.

I'm glad you think you know more than the engine designers though. One failure surely constitutes a major issue.

[GostHacked]

I still don't see any active F-35s in the Canadian air force yet.........

[waldo]

Stealth is not the only thing they sets the F-35 apart.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_jet_fighter

Stealth is only one part of the package.

"5th gen" - marketing buzz-word... that the F-35 certainly doesn't meet on all levels.... not "technically" capable of long range super-crusing, only the 'B' variant will have thrust vectoring, claimed electronic weaponry capability has yet to be proved...

[Smallc]

I still don't see any active F-35s in the Canadian air force yet.........

We haven't purchased any.

[segnosaur]

Well, it looks like some additional major problems have been found with the F35:

Engineers have uncovered a flaw ... that could reduce by half the aircraft's advertised service life... "There is a fatigue issue on part of the inside of one of the wings.

The article also points out other issues, such as problems with wing flaps that might make the plane unsafe to fly

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=20070517&id=n68jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ByAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6957,733944

I'm not sure how anyone can consider flying a plane with such issues.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, it looks like some additional major problems have been found with the F35:

Not sure what you mean here....F-35 or F-18 E/F ? I assume sarcasm unless corrected.

[segnosaur]

Well, it looks like some additional major problems have been found with the F35:

Not sure what you mean here....F-35 or F-18 E/F ? I assume sarcasm unless corrected.

Me? I'm never ever sarcastic in a million billion years.

Its obvious that since the F18 is a perfect plane, gods gift to aviation and never has problems, and the F35 is a failure, then my referenced article couldn't be referring to the F18. How could it have flaws? Only the F35 has flaws.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well let's see. The original F 18 took 4 years from first flight to in service. Twelve years after it's first flight, the F 35 still has major problems and is not yet combat ready. What does that tell you?

[waldo]

I'm not sure how anyone can consider flying a plane with such issues.

for comparative sarcasm to work it really needs to be more representative... that article presented a Super Hornet 'fatigue' concern that was found well before the article surfaced - found 4 years previously and corrected (with a relatively minor fix) 2 years previously on active production. Of course, retrofits on existing 'true' production flying planes were/are required. This is nothing at all like structural integrity problems within F-35 LRIP progression development, particularly if overall design is compromised.

[bush_cheney2004]

There were technical issues with the original F/A-18 Hornet as well, but Canada still bought them....heck....Canada is still flying them !

[segnosaur]

Well let's see. The original F 18 took 4 years from first flight to in service. Twelve years after it's first flight, the F 35 still has major problems and is not yet combat ready. What does that tell you?

It tells me that the F18 consisted largly of just tinkering with existing design concepts, providing minor upgrades, whereas the F35 is an attempt to build a plane that is more than just 'tinkering'... it does things that few (or no) other planes in the world do.... not only with stealth, but with the use of internal weapons bays, sensor integration, and having a STOVL variant with at least some compatibility with non-STOVL versions.

Things that either the 'original' F18 hornet, nor the F18E/F 'Super Hornet' don't have, or have only now started to address, years after their "first flight".

[Smallc]

Well you better tell the Canadian Military that because they had me flying around one of their old Iriquois Class destroyers for the better part of a week doing just that. As for single engine over the arctic, you totally misquoted me. I have certainly put my share of time over the north and the arctic single engine. Had no choice if I wanted a job. The RCAF has a choice. Spend a lot less money on a safer airplane. Makes pretty good sense to me.

I know someone who served aboard two of the four ships just over a decade ago in the weapons station you're referring to. They tell me that orbiting targets are useless, and that the method you suggest for calibration that you suggest us not used by the RCAF.

[On Guard for Thee]

I know someone who served aboard two of the four ships just over a decade ago in the weapons station you're referring to. They tell me that orbiting targets are useless, and that the method you suggest for calibration that you suggest us not used by the RCAF.

Well then the RCAF paid a lot of money for aircraft charter they didn't need. But I got lot's of nice pics of the Olympic mountains while I circled them over Juan de Fuca.

[Smallc]

Well, according to my friend, they did indeed waste their money...unless things have changed? I'm talking late 90s.

[On Guard for Thee]

Well, according to my friend, they did indeed waste their money...unless things have changed? I'm talking late 90s.

I'm talking directly after it went through TRUMP mods. Not sure what the date was.

[Smallc]

I'm talking directly after it went through TRUMP mods. Not sure what the date was.

Which ship?

Sorry for the aside.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Smallc

[Wilber]

Well let's see. The original F 18 took 4 years from first flight to in service. Twelve years after it's first flight, the F 35 still has major problems and is not yet combat ready. What does that tell you?

9 years for the Typhoon, 16 for the Rafale. I'm not sure it says much other than the more sophisticated these things get, the more production delays you can expect.

[bush_cheney2004]

The F/A-18 was originally developed from Northrop's YF-17 light fighter platform that dates to 1974 for first flight, and it wasn't in full operational service until 1983. That's more than 4 years.

[On Guard for Thee]

Which ship?

Sorry for the aside.

The Huron

[bush_cheney2004]

It's all over but the shouting....congratulations to Member Derek 2.0 and others for staying the course:

Senior sources inside the Canadian defence and aerospace industry are girding themselves for a government decision next week that they believe is almost sure to favour the controversial F-35.

CBC News has learned the Conservative government is expected to make a final decision next Tuesday that will put an end to the debate about whether to hold a competition to buy new fighter planes or to renew the $45-billion plan to sole-source the purchase of F-35s.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-purchase-decision-expected-next-tuesday-in-report-1.2666758

Thanks to Putin and Russia too !

Edited June 6, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

It's all over but the shouting....congratulations to Member Derek 2.0 and others for staying the course:

Senior sources inside the Canadian defence and aerospace industry are girding themselves for a government decision next week that they believe is almost sure to favour the controversial F-35.

CBC News has learned the Conservative government is expected to make a final decision next Tuesday that will put an end to the debate about whether to hold a competition to buy new fighter planes or to renew the $45-billion plan to sole-source the purchase of F-35s.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-purchase-decision-expected-next-tuesday-in-report-1.2666758

Thanks to Putin and Russia too !

It's far from all over but the shouting. Read the whole articel.

[Smallc]

The Huron

Thanks. Must have been interesting work. Was that during testing after modifications, or when was that?

[On Guard for Thee]

Thanks. Must have been interesting work. Was that during testing after modifications, or when was that?

It was testing after mods. I'm no expert on those systems but how it was described to me was that with me as a target, the radar and the optic sighting system "talked" to each other and then calibrated the weapons systems. I was asked to change altitude as well as distance and speed to test the stuff. Last flight I was asked to partake in a shipboard version of what would normally be called GCA and then invited aboard for coffee.

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-s-single-engine-too-dangerous-for-canadian-military-report-says-1.2669476

The federal government is being urged to reconsider its expected decision to buy a fleet of F-35 fighters. This time the argument isn’t about cost or procurement problems, however. It's about what's inside the plane.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report by Michael Byers this morning in Ottawa.

Mobile users: watch it live here.

Entitled "One Dead Pilot," the report argues that fighter aircraft with a single engine — as the F-35 has — are too dangerous and unreliable to be used by the Canadian military.

"This issue is especially important for Canada, which has the longest coastline in the world and vast Arctic territories," writes Byers.

Bird strikes

In the report, Byers compares the F-35 to the single-engine CF-104 Starfighter, which the Canadian air force used from the 1960s to 1987 and which was involved in 110 crashes in that time.

A quarter of those crashes were attributed to bird strikes and the fact there was no secondary engine to allow the plane to keep flying.

Byers is the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law and the University of British Columbia and also a former NDP candidate.

"Engine failures will still occur, and when they do so away from an airport, a second engine is the only thing that can prevent a crash," Byers concludes.

Just watching the live stream and the guy stated that the US military only used F-22s at it's norther stations in Alaska. The US military won't use the F-35 in arctic conditions. I don't think we should either.

[Smallc]

The US uses the F-16 in Alaska...Ditto for the Danes and the Norwegians. The F-35 is superior to that aircraft in every way save for top speed, and has the exact same number of engines.

BTW, the F-35 will eventually replace the F-16 and so will also be used in Alaska.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Smallc