• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
SeaKingTacco said:
According to Michael Byers, buying a U.S. Built f35 would too expensive because of exchange rates...and goes on to suggest we should buy a different US made fighter (the super hornet) because its price would be somehow unaffected by exchange rates?  ::)

We have a better rate on the Illinois US Dollar than the Maryland US Dollar, so yes, we would get better value buying from Boeing in Chicago, than Lockheed Martin in Baltimore.  ;D
 
Dimsum said:
I don't think you understand just how partisan Canadian politics is, especially in matters of Defence.
Oh, I do.

Was just in a glass half-full mood when I posted that.

More than once I've had to tell people that replacing a bunch of old helos for the navy once was a huge election issue in Canada. Helos, election issue, go figure..............

;)
 
The Canadian Press has reported in this story reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act that Jason Trudeau has stated his government would not produce the F35, opting instead for a cheaper aircraft. The savings would be largely diverted to rebuilding the RCN.

Trudeau says he would not buy F-35s, use savings to increase navy spending
By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Sep 20 2015

HALIFAX — Liberal party Leader Justin Trudeau says if elected his government would not purchase F-35 fighter jets and instead buy planes at a lower cost to replace the military's aging aircraft.

Trudeau says the money saved by scrapping the F-35 procurement would go primarily to increasing spending on the Royal Canadian Navy.

The Liberal leader made the comments Sunday at Pier 21 in Halifax, a National Historic Site and home to the Canadian Museum of Immigration.

He said a Liberal government would use an open process to procure new fighter planes and the money saved would go towards buying icebreakers and surface combatants for the navy.

The Conservative government had planned on purchasing 65 F-35s for the Royal Canadian Air Force but the procurement process was put on hold after the auditor general accused the government of fudging project costs and not doing sufficient research.

The purchase would have cost taxpayers an estimated $44 billion over its four-decade lifetime.

Trudeau said he would also immediately launch a review of military spending but promised to maintain current National Defence funding levels as well as planned increases.
 
Icebreakers are Canadian Coast Guard not RCN and not under DND budget:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/CCG-Icebreakers

CCG vessels very old (see link above) and current government's plan to buy only one new one--to arrive only by early2020s--is ludicrous:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/mark-collins-the-great-canadian-national-shipbuilding-procurement-screw-up-aka-nsps-icebreaker-section-part-2/

Mark
Ottawa
 
MarkOttawa said:
Icebreakers are Canadian Coast Guard not RCN and not under DND budget:
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/CCG-Icebreakers

CCG vessels very old (see link above) and current government's plan to buy only one new one--to arrive only by early2020s--is ludicrous:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/mark-collins-the-great-canadian-national-shipbuilding-procurement-screw-up-aka-nsps-icebreaker-section-part-2/

Mark
Ottawa

Yes - but Joe Public won't (and seemingly doesn't care to) know this.
 
Was referring to Chretien and the Sea King replacements.

Re above Trudeau/F35 news - good luck to him getting something into service that is actually less $$$ than the F-35.

Optimising Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen for RCAF requirements will have to be funded wholly by DND, and it won't be cheap..................................

Of course, that will be offset by Canadian industry and govt revenue from the F35......oops, no, that would evaporate, but Justin knew that, of course.

;D
 
Dimsum: Would be nice if our political parties had a bit of clue about matters on which making proposals--see Conservatives' 2006 election promise of armed icebreakers for RCN:
http://www.casr.ca/ft-harper1-2.htm

By the way full Liberal defence platform is here:
https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/A-new-plan-to-strengthen-the-economy-and-create-jobs-with-navy-investment.pdf

Mark
Ottawa

 
Liberals:
We will reduce the financial procurement envelope for replacing the CF-18s. Instead of budgeting for the acquisition of 65 F-35s, we will plan to purchase an equal or greater number of lower priced, but equally effective, replacement aircraft.

Guess that leaves only Gripen since Super Hornets now around US$ 80M--and Cdn$ now at US$ 0.75:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/mark-collins-real-f-35a-costs

Typhoon and Rafale more costly still.

Mark
Ottawa
 
I like how the liberals call for a free and open competition for a new fighter, but specifically mention the super hornet in their platform...

This has the 1992 election and the EH101 project cancellation written all over it, again.
 
MarkOttawa said:
Liberals:
Guess that leaves only Gripen since Super Hornets now around US$ 80M--and Cdn$ now at US$ 0.75:
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/mark-collins-real-f-35a-costs

Typhoon and Rafale more costly still.

Mark
Ottawa

That presupposes no further growth in F35 costs, which, given the past history of the program, is unlikely.  The 75 cent dollar, coupled with the challenges of a developmental aircraft, suggest the F35 is also nearing the unaffordable line.
 
SeaKingTacco: Esp. a competition that rules out the F-35 in advance (dubious though I have been)!

Mark
Ottawa
 
SeaKingTacco said:
I like how the liberals call for a free and open competition for a new fighter, but specifically mention the super hornet in their platform...

This has the 1992 election and the EH101 project cancellation written all over it, again.

let me guess, "No Cadillacs for the RCAF", must be channelling the old geezer  ::)

Let's ask boy Wonder, which aircraft and what is he going to say to the aerospace industry that will lose the F35 related contracts?
 
SeaKingTacco said:
This has the 1992 election and the EH101 project cancellation written all over it, again.

Yes, cancel the F-35 and hold a competition to find the best aircraft and the F-35 turns out to be the winner. Where have we seen that before.
 
Retired AF Guy: Liberals rule out F-35--competition?

We will not purchase the F-35 stealth fighter-bomber.

P. 3:
https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/A-new-plan-to-strengthen-the-economy-and-create-jobs-with-navy-investment.pdf

Mark
Ottawa
 
Cue ominous music!!!  :blotto:

National Interest

[size=18pt]China's Master Plan To Destroy the Stealthy F-22 and F-35 in Battle[/size]
Dave Majumdar
September 17, 2015

China’s Shengyang J-11 unlicensed derivative of the Russian-developed Su-27 Flanker has become the mainstay of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force  (PLAAF). While the Chinese-built jets are not able to match U.S.-built fighters one-for-one, China is building a lot of them. Down the road, advanced derivatives of the J-11 might become every bit as capable as the most advanced versions of American and allied fourth-generation fighters like the F-15 or F-16. Even fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptors and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters might be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of Chinese jets and the problems associated with the lack of bases in the Western Pacific.

There have been many iterations of the J-11. Those range from the original license-built models to the “indigenously” produced A-model to the upgraded B/BS-model, which uses a host of Chinese upgrades and avionics hardware. China continues to develop other versions of the J-11 including the advanced J-15, which is designed to operate off China’s lone aircraft carrier Liaoning,which was purchased incomplete as a derelict from the Nikolayev shipyards in Crimea. Shengyang was aided in the development of the J-15 through the purchase of a Su-33 Flanker prototype from Ukraine.

The J-15, however, was more than just a reverse engineered copy of the original Russian Flanker design. The carrier-based aircraft is expected to feature a host of advanced avionics, including a phased array radar and new infrared search and track system. But while the carrier-variant has gotten a lot of attention, a parallel development that features many of the same advancements seems to be making headway.

The J-11D, which is currently in development, is arguably the most advanced land-based single-seat Chinese version of the Flanker. While it probably is not quite as potent as the Russian Su-35S, it is very comparable in a lot of respects. While almost all information concerning Chinese hardware is suspect, the new J-11D allegedly made its first flight sometime in April. The new variant is purportedly equipped with a new electronically scanned radar—possibly an active electronically scanned array (AESA). But China wouldn’t need the Su-35 if it had developed a working, producible AESA. That could be why China and Russia have been taking so long to work out a deal to buy the Su-35—the People’s Republic has reached a point where it doesn’t need the Russians as much as they used to.

The J-11D is also purported to use radar absorbent materials to help reduce the jet’s signature, possibly a new infrared search-and-track system (IRST) and revamped electronic warfare systems. It also allegedly features an improved version of China’s WS-10 jet engine—but the Chinese have had a lot of difficulties with producing a reliable motor for their aircraft. One reason China is interested in the Su-35 is because of that plane’s engines.

But Would the Jets Ever Meet in the Skies Over Asia?:

While it is certainly important to consider all of the various possible U.S.-China fighter match ups, we must consider another possibility: there
is important data points that suggest these planes may never meet in the skies above Asia.
Given the vast distances of the Pacific, land-based Chinese fighters have limited ability to strike at their more distant neighbors, but there is likely to be an “access” problem for U.S. forces in the event of a conflict, especially if when used in conjunction with an integrated air defense system.

If there were to be a war in the Western Pacific, the massive air battles that many might envision, are not likely to take place because the United States and our allies have few bases in the region to host tactical fighters like the F-35. More problematic is that even if jets were to takeoff from bases in Japan like Kadena or Andersen Air Force Base on Guam, the distances are vast. Tankers would come at a premium and would likely to be among the first to be targeted. Moreover, the Chinese are almost certain to attack those air bases with massive barrages of cruise and ballistic missiles—potentially rendering them useless even if structures on the facilities are hardened.

Even if U.S. fighters like the F-22 and F-35 are superior to their Chinese counterparts (and they are), it is meaningless if they don’t have bases to operate from or tankers to refuel from. Further, without intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets, those jets couldn’t be properly supported—and it becomes even more difficult when the Chinese attack the space assets and data networks that hold America’s fighting forces together.

The question shouldn’t be if the F-35 would be able to hold it’s own in a dogfight, the real question should be: Are short-range tactical fighters relevant in the Pacific theatre?
 
MarkOttawa said:
Retired AF Guy: Liberals rule out F-35--competition?

P. 3:
https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/A-new-plan-to-strengthen-the-economy-and-create-jobs-with-navy-investment.pdf

Mark
Ottawa

Granted, but I would suspect that under international trade laws (e.g. NAFTA) if the Liberals tried to have an competition without including the F-35 there would be lawsuits flying all over the place.
 
Actually, R.A.A.G., the Nafta rules on require that Canada treat other member nation's businesses the same way they treat Canadian companies. Since there ain't no Canadian fighter-bomber manufacturer, there ain't no need to include American or Mexican (if any) manufacturers. Besides, military procurement is specifically excluded.
 
I would be very interested to know if Lockheed-Martin would actually enter into any competition that has actual fly-offs between F-35 and Super Hornet/Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen?  As far as I am aware the F-35 has never been flown off in a competition, and the X-35 vs X-32 competition was 14 years ago. 

I highly suspect that L-M would find some reason to decline to enter a potential Canadian competition.

Harrigan
 
What do you assess during the flyoff?  Pure aircraft performance?  In a specific role?  In all its designed roles?  It would cost tons of money to do this when we have tools available to assess the performance of the aircraft.  A few Canadian Hornet drivers flew the Super Hornet for a couple Hundreds hours, at least one flew the Eurofighter for a bit (and we are sending someone on exchange soon) and 2 guys flew in the backseat of the Rafale.  Many pilots were read into the JSF program and got to fly the sim with the latest software.

We do not need a fly off.
 
SupersonicMax said:
What do you assess during the flyoff?  Pure aircraft performance?  In a specific role?  In all its designed roles?  It would cost tons of money to do this when we have tools available to assess the performance of the aircraft.  A few Canadian Hornet drivers flew the Super Hornet for a couple Hundreds hours, at least one flew the Eurofighter for a bit (and we are sending someone on exchange soon) and 2 guys flew in the backseat of the Rafale.  Many pilots were read into the JSF program and got to fly the sim with the latest software.

We do not need a fly off.

So do you really think that "2 guys flew in the backseat of the Rafale" and "at least one flew the Eurofighter for a bit" is equivalent to the amount of time spent flying Super Hornet and F-35?  Just because the Air Force wants F-35 does not necessarily mean that it makes the most sense in the big picture.  Once the rest of the factors involved in the CF-18 replacement project are factored in (purchase cost, operating costs, maintenance costs, infrastructure replacement costs, AAR, etc), it may well be that the F-35 is not the best aircraft for Canada.  But we'll never know that unless there is a competitive bid process, something which was denied, then promised, then delayed. 

Besides, what we may want in the military doesn't really matter (we'd be looking for replacements for our fleet of SSN's if it did) - what matters is what the government is willing to buy.  If F-35 is deemed too expensive for us - (and quoting the vendor's brochures on future price levels once everyone else in the world has bought them is not a good way to make a major purchase) - then we need to find out which of the alternatives is better.

My original question remains unanswered: Would Lockheed-Martin actually enter a competition with Eurof/SH/Raf/Grip, or would they find some reason to decline to put their aircraft up against its marketplace competition?  Up until now, they have refused to allow it to compete.  If F-35 is as good as its backers claim, what do they have to fear from a competition?

Harrigan
 
Back
Top