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

[Smallc]

It already has:

So this will be a formality to shut everyone up. Good. I still wish we were buying 100 instead of 65.

[kward]

And just because we can't stop all of them does not mean we have to let all of them through. There are a lot of situations where we cannot prevent or stop 100% of incidents but that has never stopped people from trying.

Not buying fighter jets does not mean we let all threats through, it means we find ways of making us safer than an F-35 ever could, without spending billions in the process.

It's fine to try and stop force with force, but not in the case of charging taxpayers millions upon millions for it.

[kward]

So this will be a formality to shut everyone up. Good. I still wish we were buying 100 instead of 65.

Why stop at 100, maybe we should buy 500 or 1000 or maybe 10 000...y'know...just in case.

[Signals.Cpl]

Not buying fighter jets does not mean we let all threats through, it means we find ways of making us safer than an F-35 ever could, without spending billions in the process.

It's fine to try and stop force with force, but not in the case of charging taxpayers millions upon millions for it.

Care to elaborate on those ways that we can protect ourselves without spending money?

[Smallc]

Why stop at 100, maybe we should buy 500 or 1000 or maybe 10 000...y'know...just in case.

100 could allow is to equip 3 squadrons, I didn't just pick a number out of thin air.

[Guest Derek L]

So this will be a formality to shut everyone up. Good. I still wish we were buying 100 instead of 65.

If, as suggested by the NP, the report will confirm DND’s numbers as accurate, as I’ve been saying since I started posting here, this is not politically damaging to the Government (or DND) once the costs associated with operating 65:

Super Hornets

Rafale

Eurofighter

Gripen

Over 42 years are “known” …………I’ve been highlighting for over a year as to what the Australians paid for 24 Super Hornets and 20 years support (~7 billion)……….I’ve also been saying that both the Rafale and Eurofighter will ultimately cost substantially more than the F-35 (And now the flyaway cost is more than the F-35).……..And as I said above, the Gripen would be a severe reduction in capability over our current Hornets………..

I’ve been repeating these facts in hundreds of posts, and as I said, I do hope they hold a competition, for the simple fact that once all the other aircraft’s warts are made public and judged to the exact same standard as the F-35, the Lightning’s will be the obvious choice both based on merit and fiscal realities………As I’ve said, the CBO & DoD estimate operating 4th generation legacy aircraft out into the 2050s will cost four times the amount as a fleet of F-35s…………Politically, the Opposition and media will look like complete boobs once costing reports are done on other aircraft………And as each month passes, the F-35 price decreases and the others increase…………

And to toot my own horn, near everything I predicted, referenced, opined or said on this file has ultimately proven to be correct to date………Of course being both former Air Force and an employee of two large defence contractors, I might have garnered a few degrees more of insight into such topics…….but none the less:

[bush_cheney2004]

I’ve been repeating these facts in hundreds of posts, and as I said, I do hope they hold a competition, for the simple fact that once all the other aircraft’s warts are made public and judged to the exact same standard as the F-35, the Lightning’s will be the obvious choice both based on merit and fiscal realities…

But that is the essence of this game....avoid making a "choice" as long as possible. Some Canadians would prefer that no choice be made at all. Think of it as Dithering for Dollars. Fly 'em till they fall out of the sky like Sea Kings.

[login]

The Rafale not a chance……….French aircraft, will require mostly French weapons………

a lie.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/raytheon-demonstrates-wipak-wireless-paveway-avionics-kit-on-french-navy-rafale-aircraft-161654285.html

Edited December 9, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

a lie.

http://www.prnewswir...-161654285.html

Unlike as planned with the F-35 recycling our Hornets stores, the Rafale would also require a near complete replacement of all our sidewinders, AMRAAMs, Mavericks and JDAMs, not to mention new seeker heads for our Paveways………Plus a purchase of targeting and reconnaissance pods (Which are integral; to the Lightning)

Canada doesn't currently require, nor would require with an F-35 purchase, the WiPak kit........You'd best watch with the insults William.

Versus:

Now behave yourself Mr Ashley.

[login]

Canada doesn't currently require, nor would require with an F-35 purchase, the WiPak kit........You'd best watch with the insults William.

Versus:

Now behave yourself Mr Ashley.

First off you need a reality check

Second off

More distortion. You forgot to mention "none of the f35 systems are combat proven" on the f35 unlike the Rafale which has actually seen combat.

You come off as incredibly desperate with the sheer level of lying and distortion of the facts.

Rafale is also more fuel efficient at high speed than the f35 which only has a range of 500-1000n. km

the rafale's range is 3,700+ km about 4x to 8x as far. It also has more advanced missile guidance systems.

Edited December 9, 2012 by login

[Guest Derek L]

First off you need a reality check

Second off

More distortion. You forgot to mention "none of the f35 systems are combat proven" on the f35 unlike the Rafale which has actually seen combat.

You come off as incredibly desperate with the sheer level of lying and distortion of the facts.

Rafale is also more fuel efficient at high speed than the f35 which only has a range of 500-1000n. km

Care to Explain the requirement of a escorting Mirage or Super Etendard when the Rafale “is out combat proving weapons”?

As to the F-35 itself:

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123327144

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFNS) -- The F-35 Lighting II, Joint Strike Fighter began the integration phase of weapons testing Oct. 26, when the F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing aircraft successfully completed the first in-flight test with an AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile.

It was the first time a weapon communicated with the aircraft during flight using a data link.

The program's milestone rounded out a successful month of flight test for the program, which also included inert weapons separation tests of both the AMRAAM and Joint Direct Attack Munition.

And lastly:

Starting in February and continuing through the end of April, the team is anticipating releasing roughly two weapons per week, said Cregier.

"This is going to be just the beginning of what I would characterize as the most ambitious weapons integration program in the history of tactical aircraft," he said.

The F-35A is designed to carry a payload of up to 18,000 pounds using 10 weapon stations. The F-35A features four internal weapon stations located in two weapon bays to maximum stealth capability. The CTOL aircraft can also utilize an additional three weapon stations per wing if required.

Meanwhile:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121002/DEFREG01/310020006/Rafale-Delivered-AESA-Radar

The Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA) took delivery of the first production-built Rafale fighter jet fitted with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, the procurement office said Oct. 2.

The F-35 has been flying with it's radar and DAS for sometime, and has already demonstrated it's ability to track ballistic missile launches...........Let me know when the Rafale can self designate LGBs..........

[Guest Derek L]

Rafale is also more fuel efficient at high speed than the f35 which only has a range of 500-1000n. km

the rafale's range is 3,700+ km about 4x to 8x as far. It also has more advanced missile guidance systems.

You're quoting the F-35's range on internal fuel (in miles, not Km), contrasted with the Rafale's internal capacity combined with three drop tanks (in Km, not miles)..............Please try and keep up William.

[Signals.Cpl]

Derek L, I would suggest you don't waste your time explaining it to login as he has a very tenuous of the military in general and the Air Force in particular... before long he will stomp his feet and call you a traitor because you do not live in his fairytale world.

[Guest Derek L]

Derek L, I would suggest you don't waste your time explaining it to login as he has a very tenuous of the military in general and the Air Force in particular... before long he will stomp his feet and call you a traitor because you do not live in his fairytale world.

Oh, I know.........I kinda feel sorry for him.......Go back and read some of William Ashley's posts.......I'd say he's mostly harmless, but does tend to have violent "outbursts" or go the opposite direction into babble (like his suggesting purchasing a zillion MIGs, powerboats, mopeds, unicycles, a trapeze spanning coast to coast, flying nuclear powered monkeys, robots, Imperial Star Destroyers and Zeppelins.)

[Guest Derek L]

But that is the essence of this game....avoid making a "choice" as long as possible. Some Canadians would prefer that no choice be made at all. Think of it as Dithering for Dollars. Fly 'em till they fall out of the sky like Sea Kings.

They never planned to put the money on LockMart’s barrel until 2016-17.……….The Government is up by 14 in the first quarter and just punted from their own 45.……..right into after the next election

[login]

First off you need a reality check

Second off

More distortion. You forgot to mention "none of the f35 systems are combat proven" on the f35 unlike the Rafale which has actually seen combat.

You come off as incredibly desperate with the sheer level of lying and distortion of the facts.

Rafale is also more fuel efficient at high speed than the f35 which only has a range of 500-1000n. km

the rafale's range is 3,700+ km about 4x to 8x as far. It also has more advanced missile guidance systems.

[login]

You're quoting the F-35's range on internal fuel (in miles, not Km), contrasted with the Rafale's internal capacity combined with three drop tanks (in Km, not miles)..............Please try and keep up William.

no actually I wasn't.

What is your f35's range? Are the cost of external f35 tanks includedin the f35 purchase?

What do those external munitions and tanks do to the f35's stealth? hmm..

so far the f35 is only approved for two missiles internally AND it isn't an intercept fighter... figure that.

Yeah that is right the external fuel tanks negate the f35's stealth so if you are buying a stealth fighter, then you can't spec it based upon its characteristics when its stealth doesn't function!

see also:http://demosthenes.info/blog/337/The-F35-Joint-Strike-Fighter-The-Wrong-Tool-For-Canadas-Air-Force

Edited December 9, 2012 by login

[punked]

We are back to this? Look put it out to tender just like the NDP said you should in 2011. Its easy the NDP was right and Harper is only now admitting it.

[Smallc]

We are back to this? Look put it out to tender just like the NDP said you should in 2011.

It's not really out to tender. A panel is going to study the options using the same method as the NSPS.

[punked]

It's not really out to tender. A panel is going to study the options using the same method as the NSPS.

And get this they are going to publish a report giving the Canadian people reasons why the F35 or whatever plane is selected was picked. Go figure that thing the opposition asked for in 2011.

[Smallc]

And get this they are going to publish a report giving the Canadian people reasons why the F35 or whatever plane is selected was picked. Go figure that thing the opposition asked for in 2011.

The government should have clearly laid out the reasons before, as this is all really unnecessary.

[punked]

The government should have clearly laid out the reasons before, as this is all really unnecessary.

Great we agree.

[Smallc]

I said that all along. There's no controversy here.

[Guest Derek L]

no actually I wasn't.

What is your f35's range? Are the cost of external f35 tanks includedin the f35 purchase?

What do those external munitions and tanks do to the f35's stealth? hmm..

so far the f35 is only approved for two missiles internally AND it isn't an intercept fighter... figure that.

Yeah that is right the external fuel tanks negate the f35's stealth so if you are buying a stealth fighter, then you can't spec it based upon its characteristics when its stealth doesn't function!

see also:http://demosthenes.i...nadas-Air-Force

External tanks……..AKA drop tanks....Not as bad as mixing up km with miles and vice versa...but still

[login]

External tanks……..AKA drop tanks....Not as bad as mixing up km with miles and vice versa...but still

I didn't mix anything up.

Rafale supercruises at mach 1.6 to 1.7.

What is the F35's fuel conservation speed?

I'll post it for you mach 1.1 1362 km/h

as opposed to the rafale's 1960 KM/H +

oh and

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121002/DEFREG01/310020006/Rafale-Delivered-AESA-Radar

Edited December 9, 2012 by login