# Check this out!!!!



## DeadBolt (10 Aug 2004)

I found this on rcaf.com...

_"Other international governments have expressed interest in Lockheed Martin's JSF program, including current participants Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Canada, Singapore, Turkey and Israel. Canadian participation has included limited partner status throughout the program and guarantees an option to purchase._

http://www.rcaf.com/1997_2010_present/aircraft/fighters/index.htm

Wow i never knew that Canada is interested in buy the new f-35's, now maybe Canada has something to brag about


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Aug 2004)

Looks like some wishful thinking on a personal site:



> *Q: Is This Site The Official Site Of The Canadian Air Force*
> 
> * A:*No, this site is a personal site designed to promote the history of Canada's air forces and is not affiliated with, nor endorsed by, the Department of National Defence or the Air Force Association of Canada.



http://www.rcaf.com/faq.shtml

On the other hand, I am sure the Air Force is looking at various options for the fighter after CF-18. Whether or not it turns out to be the F-35 JSF remains to be seen.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Aug 2004)

I believe Canada has already invested/promised about $250,000,000 in the JSF project.  This buys us a seat at the table reviewing specs, an opportunity for our industry to bid on parts of the project and an option to buy at a later date.  There are more milestones upcoming where Canada will likely be asked if it wants to up the ante or fold.


----------



## Inch (10 Aug 2004)

Kirkhill, you're absolutely right, I remember a year or so ago that the government did invest in the JSF project.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2001/10/26/jointstrike_011026.html
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/TechNews/2003/10/12/231620-cp.html

The second article mentions $150 million as what we invested.

Cheers


----------



## pjocsak (11 Aug 2004)

You guys are completely right. Canada made a ten year comitment to "systems development stage" of the program, which of course included a multi-million dollar investment in the program. This is primarily so that Canadian companies can have a crack at some of the contracts resulting from the JSF. It doesn't commit us to buying it, however. As far as I know, the only other two countries that have invested more than us in the program are the US (of course) and the UK. Although a whole group of other countries have also signed onto the program in one form or another.

P.


----------



## ags281 (12 Aug 2004)

From _The Aerospace Capability Framework_ 1st Edition, 2003:
"When the CF-18 reaches its ELE in 2017, it is expected there will be a requirement for a manned fighter aircraft to conduct aerospace control and force application missions. Accordingly, the Air Force will form a New Generation Fighter Capability project office in 2008 time frame, allowing selection of a replacement aircraft by 2011, placing of a contract by 2012 and initial deliveries by 2015. Changes to the CF-18 ELE could drive changes to the aforementioned dates. While future technological developments may provide additional options, aircraft currently foreseen as potential candidates are fifth generation fighters such as the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter."

Since the F-22 is pretty useless in ground attack and is extremely expensive the JSF is the logical choice between those two. As no other fighters are mentioned, it seems the plan is to continue our trend of buying American when it comes to jets. Sounds like they're not committing to it yet just on the off chance something better for our needs comes along in the next few years. Well, either that or it's for political reasons such as planning another one of these "fair and open" (or whatever they call it) competitions among bids that has been such a smashing success with the MHP, in which case I just might snap.

My bet is they'll go with the JSF, as I haven't really heard of any other jets due to enter production around that time (besides the Mako, which is still only on paper IIRC and is meant for training, with armament an afterthought option for cheap air power - hmm... maybe we should look into that   : - kind of like the Hawk).


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Aug 2004)

FYI, according to www.jsf.mil (go to >>Program >>International):

Canada is a Level III partner (UK Level I, Italy and the Netherlands are Level II, and Canada, Turkey, Australia and "Denmark/Norway" are Level III), which means:

"LEVEL III PARTNER

Approx 1-2% ($250-500M) Per Country Contribution [note: Canada actual $150M, as at 7 Feb 02]

    * Integrated Office Staff (1)
    * National Deputy Reporting to Director, ID
    * Number of Partners Negotiable"

If I recall correctly, a few Canadian companies are already working on the project (i.e., have been awarded contracts).


----------



## air533 (19 Mar 2005)

.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Mar 2005)

Twin engines does not necessarily mean more reliability.  In some cases, it actually adds complexity and chances for something to go wrong.  Guess what CF inventory aircraft had some of the lowest engine fail rates per flight hour...T-33s, Iroquois and Kiowa.  Only aircraft I've had an engine catastrophically fail on me was....a Twin Huey.  Go figure...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Inch (19 Mar 2005)

air533 said:
			
		

> I still think the Canadian government would rather buy a twin-engined fighter for reliabllty reasons.



This is the third time you stated the exact same thing. The F-16 has one engine and is in service with a large number of countries including Denmark, The Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, Belgium and a host of others.

I said it in one of the other threads you posted the same comment in, engines are far more reliable now and the multi-engine-for-reliability theory exists from the days of unreliable engines, which is not the case in today's day and age.

*Duey, you beat me to it, glad to see we're in agreement.


----------



## air533 (19 Mar 2005)

.


----------



## Torlyn (19 Mar 2005)

air533 said:
			
		

> I know initially the F-16 as an aircraft had a high failure rate.



Really?  I google'd this, but couldn't come up with anything.  Can anyone advise?

T


----------



## Inch (19 Mar 2005)

air533 said:
			
		

> Nothing against the F-16 but the fact is Canada didn't choose it - we picked the F-18 instead.
> I know initially the F-16 as an aircraft had a high failure rate.
> Since multi-engined fighters have been available, Canada has never had a single-engined interceptor.
> I'm not in the Air Force, but I don't imagine DND spends much time flying T-33's over the high arctic.
> ...



I never said engines from 20 years ago were patently unreliable. I said the multi-engine-for-reliability theory comes from the days of unreliable engines, ie 50 years ago when jet engines came into the main stream.

Never had a single engine interceptor? CF 104 Starfighter ring a bell? As well, interceptors are fairly useless nowadays, we need multi role fighters, ie CF 18s, F-15s, F-22s, etc.

I can't say what the reliability of the F-16 is like, but when the largest Air Force in the world picks it, as well as numerous other Air Forces, it kinda makes you wonder if the extra engine is that big of an advantage.


----------



## air533 (19 Mar 2005)

.


----------



## Inch (20 Mar 2005)

Thanks for clarifying.

The Starfighter was designed as an interceptor, we adapted it to a strike aircraft. IMO, this wasn't the greatest idea we ever had hence the reason the Starfighter got it's nickname "The Widowmaker".


----------



## jmacleod (22 Mar 2005)

The New Fighter Aircraft Program circa 1975-1980 finally focused on two aircraft by 1980 - the
first choice was in fact the F-16 from General Dynamics who intended to build the aircraft in
Montreal Canada (Canadair) the F-86 Sabre and F-104 Starfighter were built under license by
Canadair. The fact is that the NFAP Canadian Forces management team chose the F-16, but
the McDonnell-Douglas Northrop Team offered what are now known as Industrial Regional
Benefits (IRB's) or offsets (to "offset" loss of Canadian jobs in a Major Crown Project offshore
purchase) There was no significance to the oft heard "twin engines as opposed to one" The
choice was a political choice, ultimately made in the PMO. For more details about IRB's and
the Military, go to "The Canadian Defence Industrial Base - DND Strategic Finance and Economics"
which is on the net. IRB's are a critical aspect of the MHP currently in negotiations. Regards
MacLeod


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Mar 2005)

Ah yes....IRBs!  :  

Interestingly, there was never a Red Lobster in Canada before 1982.  US-based, anti-Canadian-shellfish conspiracy you might ask?  Nope.  Red Lobster's establishment in Canada was part of the deal.

*Whew...one more piece of UFI released!*  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------

