# New Fighters



## mad dog 2020 (8 Apr 2011)

I am NOT an NDP fan but I was surprised that jack Layton suggested JSS or AOR replacement today in Esquimalt (the Esquimalt part I understand).
I have noticed that with all the disasters maybe new ships would be a better investment.  If we could have sent the Preserver to Haiti.  We have had Katrina, Japan and now Libya.  
Do we really need cadillacs.  At least ships would be built in Canada.
maybe some more C17s.
I think maybe this topic shpi;d be reconsidered.


----------



## ballz (8 Apr 2011)

Shared with the usual caveats... http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=28300492



> Layton said the NDP would commit to defence spending levels outlined in the latest budget, but noted that his party would have different defence priorities, which include:
> 
> - defending Canada and protecting Canadians;
> 
> ...



Between ships and jets I don't know what we need more, but from what I gather, Layton wants the military to be capable of handing out food and water all the time, but not capable of opening a can of whoop-ass, so I'll pass.

Layton knows he's not getting elected anyway, he makes all kinds of promises. I'm wondering when he's going to offer all Canadians a free car.


----------



## mad dog 2020 (8 Apr 2011)

Usually my spelling and grammar are above standard, however I sometimes speak in short form. And sausage fingers with hunt and peck on an iPad is trying. So sorry.
Think content not perfection or I would be writing for the Globe and Mail.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Apr 2011)

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> Usually my spelling and grammar are above standard, however I sometimes speak in short form. And sausage fingers with hunt and peck on an iPad is trying. So sorry.
> Think content not perfection or I would be writing for the Globe and Mail.



Well.  The editorial staff and proof readers at the Globe aren't that great either.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2011)

We better take Taliban Jack's pronouncements on the CF very seriously indeed. I can't imagine Mr Ignatieff NOT triggering a coalition if the CPC wins a minority again; it serves his ambition to be Prime Minister, prevents his ouster as leader of the Liberal Party and gives him a chance to kick Bob Rae in the teeth (which may be the overriding objective).

If/when that happens, Jack Layton will become a cabinet minister, so what he wants to do becomes of great importance (since keeping Jack and Giles happy is the only way Mr Ignatieff remains Prime Minister, evoids a hostile leadership review and keeps his foot on Bob Rae's neck [and by extension, the Young Dauphin as well]). 

After the next decade of darkness, the Canadian economy will be in shambles and the Boomer cohort will be making insatiable demands on the treasury; there may be no recovery possible for the CF after that point.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Apr 2011)

MGalantine said:
			
		

> You can't rob Peter to pay Paul - While AORs are a pressing need, keep in mind the CF-18s have been flying since the early 1980s- By the time they get replaced they'll be 40 years old, roughly. You either buy another aircraft (Care to suggest an alternative that would be palatable to the military and government?) or you leave your guys in increasingly worn out hardware, which means you're putting off the inevitable like they did with the Sea King replacement- Nearly 20 years later, and there STILL isn't a replacement.
> 
> The aerospace industry up here is excited about the JSF- My profs have been waxing over and over at the potential- And as much as I like the concept of having everything made in Canada, remembering the last ride I took in a LSVW leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth.
> 
> Also, I know I sound like a German particular about his grammar, but spell checking and grammar can only help your post.



Considering _Protecteur_ and _Preserver_ have been sailing since 1969 and 1970 I think the Navy has had a pressing need for the AORs to be replaced for a long long time.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Apr 2011)

> - defending Canada and protecting Canadians;
> 
> - assisting people when disasters strike in Canada and abroad;
> 
> - providing support for peacekeeping and peacebuilding



Isn't that what we do now?


----------



## Webgear (8 Apr 2011)

The F-35 is a very poor deal for the military. The forces are getting serious ripped off by this program and this purchase.


----------



## MJP (8 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> The F-35 is a very poor deal for the military. The forces are getting serious ripped off by this program and this purchase.



While I am convinced by your articulate statement, could you please expand on it for the benefit of others that may be on the fence?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Apr 2011)

Webgear-

How are things going over at Rabble.ca?  Must be some pretty interesting election debates, huh?


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> The F-35 is a very poor deal for the military. The forces are getting serious ripped off by this program and this purchase.



And just how do you know this? Please explain. Thank you.


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

I do not believe the cost per aircraft is beneficial for the forces. The number of aircraft we are not purchasing will not cover our current operating capabilities and mission requirements. 

The platform has some serious design flaws in my view. I believe we should purchased another platform.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> I do not believe the cost per aircraft is beneficial for the forces. The number of aircraft we are not purchasing will not cover our current operating capabilities and mission requirements.
> 
> The platform has some serious design flaws in my view. I believe we should purchased another platform.



Which platform? Are you an aeronautical engineer....what design flaws?


----------



## Brasidas (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> I do not believe the cost per aircraft is beneficial for the forces. The number of aircraft we are not purchasing will not cover our current operating capabilities and mission requirements.
> 
> The platform has some serious design flaws in my view. I believe we should purchased another platform.



And what other platform should be purchased?


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

Everyone

I am not trying to be rude or stir up any trouble, I just do not believe the F-35 is the correct choice for the CF.

Jim

I am not an aeronautical engineer, however I do understand roles and capabilities of most platforms.

Brasidas

The Typhoon would be my leading choice. Maybe a slightly older platform such as the JAS 39 Gripen could be looked at.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2011)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> And what other platform should be purchased?



Considering the actual offensive roles our air force has played (Persian Gulf War, Kosovo, Lybia) I would think a long range heavy bomber capable of projecting force from Canada was what we _really_ need. Such an aircraft would also have the sensors, range and on station time to patrol the arctic (and the bomb bay could be configured to carry AAM's in that role). Future technologies like railguns or lasers would also profit from a large airframe.

Of course you need a dedicated population that supports the military establishment to start thinking in those terms. The CF-35 is a realistic choice based on our needs, the size of the military establishment and the amount of real support the population of Canada is willing to give.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Apr 2011)

> The Typhoon would be my leading choice. Maybe a slightly older platform such as the JAS 39 Gripen could be looked at.



My problem with those two aircraft are:

They are built in Europe, thus complicating the logistics and training issue

They are designed for Europe, meaning they do not have a great combat radius.  Not a big problem when your country is the size of a postage stamp and you have an airport every 10NM.  Not so good in Canada...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> The number of aircraft we are not purchasing will not cover our current operating capabilities and mission requirements.



The last time we had more than a squadron of fighter/bomber aircraft in the air up to no good was May 1945.   With no Cold War we are free to pick and choose our missions.


----------



## ballz (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> Everyone
> 
> I am not trying to be rude or stir up any trouble, I just do not believe the F-35 is the correct choice for the CF.



I don't think anybody is accusing you of being rude or stirring up trouble... it's just kind of customary that when discussing something you actually discuss the "why" behind your belief rather that simply stating the "what." I have no clue about jets and would be interested in hearing WHY you don't like the F-35s for Canada.

Jim also asked your credentials because that would him (and me) decide how much weight to hold in your belief.

So please, now that you've started with a few other posters, please elaborate.


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The last time we had more than a squadron of fighter/bomber aircraft in the air up to no good was May 1945.   With no Cold War we are free to pick and choose our missions.



If that is the case, why are we ordering 65 aircraft when only a couple of dozen would suit our recent mission objectives?


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

Ballz

I will elaborate in more detail in all future posts. This was my mistake in the original post to this thread.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> If that is the case, why are we ordering 65 aircraft when only a couple of dozen would suit our recent mission objectives?



I thought you said 65 wasn't enough?


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

No, I did not say that.  

My major issue with the F-35 is the cost per aircraft. We could purchase 2 or 3 other platforms for the price of one F-35. 

We could purchase other much needed equipment for the forces if we selected another aircraft. Instead we are putting 15-30 billion dollars into a platform that I believe will not suit our needs in future conflicts.

I would rather see 5 billion dollars spent on a different aircraft, and the remaining 10 billion dollars spent on rotary aircraft (heavy lift/ground attack), naval ships (JSS/AORs) and armoured vehicles.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> No, I did not say that.



"The number of aircraft we are not purchasing will not cover our current operating capabilities and mission requirements. "

I'm done.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> If that is the case, why are we ordering 65 aircraft when only a couple of dozen would suit our recent mission objectives?



Well, you see its like this :

1- You need some available for missions
2- You need some available for training
3- You will have some that are broken and being fixed
4- You will have some going through one level of periodic inspection or other
5- At some point you will have some away for upgrades
6- Unfortunately, during the course of a fighter's service life, you will lose some to accidents and operations

It adds up very, very fast..........


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

That is my point, these 65 F-35 will not suit our needs as you have outline.

So why are we not buying more aircraft of a different type at a less cost?


----------



## aesop081 (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> That is my point, these 65 F-35 will not suit our needs as you have outline.



I never said that 65 does not suit our needs.

If we resonably expect to only deploy 6 overseas at any given time, plus maintaining alert here at home...........

Now, how about *you* explain why it does not sit our needs, are you just throwing out baseless opinions ?


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

Sorry... I did meant to imply that you stated that the 65 aircraft will not suit our needs. 

I meant the factors you brought up are good points, I do not believe the number of aircraft will mean the CF current requirements from the factors you have outlined.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> I do not believe the number of aircraft will mean the CF current requirements from the factors you have outlined.



Then please explain why you think that. Saying the same thing over and over with no analysis does not give your position any credibility and will certainly not convince anyone.


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

Okay, I will try to explain my view by using the 6 factors you have outlined above.

Looking at previous deployment rates for the CF-18 over the last 20 years, lets say at anyone time you 8 aircraft deployed overseas (like Libya), you will likely have another 12 aircraft deployed in Canada (domestic operations).

There are 24 aircraft at the various fighter squadrons across the country being used for collective training. 

Another 12 aircraft are being use for training (individual pilot training, supporting joint collective training such as Maple Guardian 1102)

Another 4 aircraft are broken, 4 are getting upgrades and another 12 aircraft are going through periodical inspection.

And lets say that 5 of the aircraft are destroyed in the first 10 years due to various reasons.   

By my count that adds up to 81 aircraft, when we only have order 65 at 15 billion dollars. 

Of course these are the worst case numbers in this given scenario however if we ordered a less expensive platform and ordered 130 Typhoons we would have better depth in our operations and capabilities.


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

Maybe some of you guys can tell me why Canada needs the F-35 instead of other platforms and why is the F-35 worth the 15 billion dollars?


----------



## aesop081 (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> if we ordered a less expensive platform and ordered 130 Typhoons we would have better depth in our operations and capabilities.



So show me that Typhoon is less expensive........


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> Okay, I will try to explain my view by using the 6 factors you have outlined above.
> 
> Looking at previous deployment rates for the CF-18 over the last 20 years, lets say at anyone time you 8 aircraft deployed overseas (like Libya), you will likely have another 12 aircraft deployed in Canada (domestic operations).
> 
> ...



Let's put this into perspective for you.  Let's pretend you live in "small town Canada".  Your small town has a Fire Hall housing a fifty year old firetruck.  It is hard to get parts for this truck and it is worn out.   The Town Council has put the rubber stamp on the plans of a Developer to build a seven story condominium.  The Fire Dept has no equipment to deal with structures over two stories high.  As there hasn't been a fire in this small town for several years, the Town Council sees no need to buy a new firetruck, one that would be able to better handle all worse case scenarios.  For this very reason they closed down and sold off the fire equipment of a second Fire Station a few years back as a budget cut, leaving just one today to deal with fires  

Now let's look at our military and the world today.  This is not 1900 any more, and the world situation changes very quickly these days.  Industry can not retool for war overnight.  Our major industrial centers are still targeted by ICBMs of our enemies/former enemies.   

If you want to be prepared for the worse case scenarios, you must have the equipment and training to deal with them, whether they happen or not.  You do not train and equip after the fact.

It is called "preparedness".


----------



## mad dog 2020 (9 Apr 2011)

So we have 40 yr old ships, which are not double hulled and are not totally welcome abroad due to possible environmental concerns.  We had a chance for some UK clearance sell offs to do a stop gap, and this could be a compromise to address the JSSship/planes issue.  
Seemed to be OK with Australia.  
It just seems that the cost of the planes is a bit steep considering the current fiscal climate.  And the JSS are overdue.
There shouldn't be a navy vs air force contest. both are required.
Maybe with the US finacial woes buy some aircraft off them to tide us over until we are better off budget wise. I understand they may have a few extra laying around.
We did this with the tank situation and the German/Dutch dealio.
just a thought. Money is a bit tight and this is not a popular topic in the election propaganda.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Apr 2011)

> Maybe with the US finacial woes buy some aircraft off them to tide us over until we are better off budget wise. I understand they may have a few extra laying around.
> We did this with the tank situation and the German/Dutch dealio.



Yeah- we've done that before, both with Banshees for the RCN and Voodoos for the RCAF.  We got junk both times that ended up being more trouble than it was worth.

Buying used aircraft is really problematic.  Airworthiness and maintenance history issues are almost guaranteed to crop up. 

This is probably the most expensise and least effective way of solving our fighter woes.

Buy new or buy nothing.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Apr 2011)

Used British Subs anyone???

Reportable: "At the moment, none of the British-built diesel boats is capable of firing the navy's stock of torpedoes."


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

According to Jane's Defence Weekly the Typhoon's cost per unit is around 105 million while the F-35 cost per unit is around 134 million.

Considering the F-35 is not even production yet, the cost per unit will continue to rise.


----------



## WingsofFury (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> I do not believe the cost per aircraft is beneficial for the forces. The number of aircraft we are not purchasing will not cover our current operating capabilities and mission requirements.
> 
> The platform has some serious design flaws in my view. I believe we should purchased another platform.



No offence, but you sound like you got your information straight from what Winslow Wheeler of the Centre for Defense Information in Washington said while in Canada earlier this week.

And with regards to cost, I think you'll find the following after a little bit of research:

Super Hornet Cost: $106 Million US (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11233sp.pdf - pg. 10)

Eurofighter Typhoon:  $90 Million Euros (not to mention all the delays and still increasing prices)

As well, your comment about the platform having serious design flaws is leaving me concerned.

Even if you're not an aeronautical engineer, it shouldn't take a degree to know that when ones weapons stations aren't aligned with the fuselage then there will be reduced aerodynamics and as such less maneuverability.  Have a close look at the Super Hornet to get the jist of what I'm talking about.

And Webgear - how can you state that the per unit cost will rise when everyone knows that once something is being produced the cost will come down, not rise?  As well, it's not like Canada is having to pay for the R&D for this aircraft.


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

George Wallace

I am not saying we should not buy new aircraft, I am saying the F-35 is not worth the cost. 

I am saying we should look at other aircraft to suit our needs.


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

Wing of Fury

I am not offended, I am interested in debating what platform is better for Canada.

I have done a bit of research on the subject. I am not bias in my research, I have looked at several different sites from both right and left wing prospective. 

Why do you think the F-35 is the better platform for Canada?


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> Why do you think the F-35 is the better platform for Canada?



Webgear, your question is valid.  The answer has been addressed on this site elsewhere although it escapes me just now as does the reference to this article by Laurie Hawn  also previously posted.

In my opinion it is the most succinct and cogent (well maybe not succinct) argument for the F-35 published.


----------



## DexOlesa (9 Apr 2011)

The F-35 will come fully equipped. That is radar, ECM, etc. That stock price for the Super Hornets is for a gutted hornet with no systems installed. Once you purchase all the extras you need, then integrate them, the Super Hornet comes out to much more per aircraft that the F-35, for an older, less capable platform. This is why the JSF is the best deal for Canada.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Apr 2011)

Our Air Force needs new fighters.  Technology has advanced so much since we bought the CF-18s that we need new platforms.  We also have to ensure that our pilots can talk to people.  Everyone seems to forget about Comms.  We need to be able to communicate on whatever means NATO, US and our other Allies use.  

My greatest fear now is that the Liberals will pull off another stunt like they did when they cancelled the EH-101s.  We paid billions and got nothing.  We have invested, along with other Allies, in the R&D of the F-35, and to walk away without getting any puts us back in that position where we have taken tax payer's money and got nothing in return.

Money for Nothing


----------



## Webgear (9 Apr 2011)

George 

I agree with your concerns about wasted money if the purchase is cancel. 
Everyone

Are we or are we not paying for R&D? Some people say we are and some people say we are not. I believe we are paying for R&D.


----------



## ReneeClaude (9 Apr 2011)

I am not an engineer and only have my humble opinion to offer, but does people that think the F-35 is too expensive even think of the cost the people that will be sitting in these are paying? Why shouldn't they have what's best out there and help, as much as possible, ensure that they are going back home to their family et friends at the end of a work day? Plus, unlike some other aircraft that have been suggested, they are bringing jobs to Canada, helping the economy.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but, looking in the long run, isn't the JSF the most cost efficient?  Being the only 5th generation fighter out there, means that we would end up  buy a 4th generation, making it more expensive to upgrade and maintain? Plus, as George has pointed out 





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Everyone seems to forget about Comms.  We need to be able to communicate on whatever means NATO, US and our other Allies use.



I am sure there are other programs that can be cute, it doesn't really matter if we our out of the deficit and have a healthy economy if we can't even defend ourselves...

So like I said, I am no engineer, but I personally know one who worked on the JSF project and he told me that they were the best machine the CF can buy! 'Nuf said


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Apr 2011)

The 30bn over 30 years is only part of the issue. There's also the greatly overlooked economic offsets portion of the deal. While I don't have the figures to hand, a great deal of the government's money will be returned to Canadians through these offsets. Whether through direct employment in construction of the aircraft, or as secondary suppliers. I read that of the initial 9bn for the hardware, at least 1/2 would come back. Of the remaining 21bn, the return on investment would be greater as the maintenance and supply contracts would largely go to Canadian companies.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> Are we or are we not paying for R&D? Some people say we are and some people say we are not. I believe we are paying for R&D.



We have contributed financialy to the R&D effort for the JSF program.



			
				AirForceMonkey said:
			
		

> Plus, as George has pointed out



I fly an aircraft from roughly the same time period as the CF-188, yet we have no problems communicating with other countries in NATO ( US forces included). IIRC, this is not an issue these days for the fighters so what is your point ??



> So like I said, I am no engineer, but I personally know one who worked on the JSF project and he told me that they were the best machine the CF can buy! 'Nuf said



The salesman who sold me a GM car in 2003 said it was the best car out there for what i was looking for. Heck, was he ever wrong........


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Apr 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Considering the actual offensive roles our air force has played (Persian Gulf War, Kosovo, Lybia) I would think a long range heavy bomber capable of projecting force from Canada was what we _really_ need. Such an aircraft would also have the sensors, range and on station time to patrol the arctic (and the bomb bay could be configured to carry AAM's in that role). Future technologies like railguns or lasers would also profit from a large airframe.
> 
> Of course you need a dedicated population that supports the military establishment to start thinking in those terms. The CF-35 is a realistic choice based on our needs, the size of the military establishment and the amount of real support the population of Canada is willing to give.



I think this is the wrong approach. What happens when said bomber might have to do air to air? Bombers are not really known for their maneuverablity


----------



## ReneeClaude (9 Apr 2011)

CDN Aviator first, thank you very much for serving!



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I fly an aircraft from roughly the same time period as the CF-188, yet we have no problems communicating with other countries in NATO ( US forces included). IIRC, this is not an issue these days for the fighters so what is your point ??



True, but will it be the same if we have a 4th generation fighter and they have a 5th? As I said, you can correct me if I am wrong 



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The salesman who sold me a GM car in 2003 said it was the best car out there for what i was looking for. Heck, was he ever wrong........



Well, it is GM  The difference though is that the salesman was making a commission on it, the guy I know didn't.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Apr 2011)

AirForceMonkey said:
			
		

> True, but will it be the same if we have a 4th generation fighter and they have a 5th? As I said, you can correct me if I am wrong



"generation this" and "generation that" is meaningless talk that looks good on paper but has no substance. A radio talks to the same radio no matter what "generation" of fighter they are put into just like Link 11 on a CP-140 will still talk to Link 11 on a brand-new MPA. The F-35 is not the first time in history that newer fighters work with older fighters. The US itself will continue to operate (so-called) 4th gen aircraft for quite some time, i'm sure they will still talk to each other.


----------



## ReneeClaude (9 Apr 2011)

Thank you for the clarification CDN Aviator.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Apr 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> "generation this" and "generation that" is meaningless talk that looks good on paper but has no substance. A radio talks to the same radio no matter what "generation" of fighter they are put into just like Link 11 on a CP-140 will still talk to Link 11 on a brand-new MPA. The F-35 is not the first time in history that newer fighters work with older fighters. The US itself will continue to operate (so-called) 4th gen aircraft for quite some time, i'm sure they will still talk to each other.



I don't think so. I believe, that pilots with disparate equipment will be required to communicate with other aircraft by closing to visual distance and using semaphore flag code.

It will be the only way to ensure interoperability 8)


----------



## Occam (9 Apr 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> "generation this" and "generation that" is meaningless talk that looks good on paper but has no substance. A radio talks to the same radio no matter what "generation" of fighter they are put into just like Link 11 on a CP-140 will still talk to Link 11 on a brand-new MPA. The F-35 is not the first time in history that newer fighters work with older fighters. The US itself will continue to operate (so-called) 4th gen aircraft for quite some time, i'm sure they will still talk to each other.



I understand what you're saying, but there will always be generational differences between aircraft, based on the number of upgrades you're willing to throw at it.  The CF-18 fleet just had Link 16 installed, which won't talk to the Link 11 on your CP-140.  The F-35 will likely be fitted with Link-22 from the outset, which won't communicate with either the CF-18 or the CP-140.  The CP-140 will likely never be upgraded beyond Link-11, and the CF-18 will likely never see Link-22, so there will always be some generational differences.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Apr 2011)

>Instead we are putting 15-30 billion dollars into a platform that I believe will not suit our needs in future conflicts.

Given the length of time it takes our governments to make procurement decisions and then to procure, plus the in-service lifetime of the procured equipment after we postpone the next procurement cycle two or three times, it only makes sense that the "needs of future conflicts" will be best met by the most advanced aircraft undergoing development at the time procurement starts.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Apr 2011)

Webgear said:
			
		

> No, I did not say that.
> 
> My major issue with the F-35 is the cost per aircraft. We could purchase 2 or 3 other platforms for the price of one F-35.



Technically, no one can definitively state a "cost per aircraft" because you don't contract to purchase aircraft by "per aircraft" price tag.  The overall capital acquisition, operations & maintenance costs, and in-service support costs over the expected lifetime of the fleet result in an overall program cost.  Only then, is one able to calculate a mathematical (vice a contractual) "per aircraft" cost.

What kind of aircraft (and associated in-service support capability) could you purchase two to three times more of?  Have you included a multi-billion dollar "mid-life upgrade" for the numerous 4-th generation dated designs that many people here are recommending?




			
				Webgear said:
			
		

> We could purchase other much needed equipment for the forces if we selected another aircraft. Instead we are putting 15-30 billion dollars into a platform that I believe will not suit our needs in future conflicts.



"Will not suit our needs in future conflicts"?  As opposed to 10-20 year old designs just entering production now?  

Many people mistakenly focus on "stealth" as the only redeeming operational advantage of the F-35 overall other fighters.  It's not only about "not being seen", but in seeing better than anyone else.  They have failed to assess that a significant benefit of the F-35 is the high level of integration of sensor, communication, weapon and avionics systems into a highly effective, integrated airborne weapon system.  A little bit of research about the F-35's EO DAS (Electro-optical Distributed Aperture System) gives some understanding to the incredible advances in capability in systems the represent quite well what makes a 5th Generation fighter (not just stealth).



			
				Webgear said:
			
		

> I would rather see 5 billion dollars spent on a different aircraft, and the remaining 10 billion dollars spent on rotary aircraft (heavy lift/ground attack), naval ships (JSS/AORs) and armoured vehicles.



You mean like another 5 (well, 4.9) billion dollars for heavy lift rotary aircraft?  Like these? 


Regards
G2G


----------



## a_majoor (10 Apr 2011)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I think this is the wrong approach. What happens when said bomber might have to do air to air? Bombers are not really known for their maneuverablity



He asked the question of which new aircraft we should buy with the essentially preconceived notion that some other fighter like the JAS-39, Super Hornet or Typhoon would do the same job. I just pointed out that a clean sheet of paper might not even turn up a fighter aircraft.

From a realistic perspective, we can only be looking at a multi role fighter, and our Air Force seems to have decided that the CF-35 is indeed the best platform for the job. Not knowing more than can be found out in _Janes_, I am willing to accept they do in fact know what they are talking about (and they in turn won't dispute what soldiers decide about tanks, rifles and other battlefield paraphernalia).


----------



## aesop081 (10 Apr 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> but there will always be generational differences between aircraft,



Of course there is but focusing strictly on what label we place on an aircraft is unproductive. It is meaningless. One must analyze the capabilities and aircraft has and not what abstract generation it is supposedly from.




> The CF-18 fleet just had Link 16 installed,



And that L16 will talk to link 16 installed on anything.



> which won't talk to the Link 11 on your CP-140.



Irrelevant. Link 16 and Link 11 serve 2 different purposes.




> The CP-140 will likely never be upgraded beyond Link-11, and the CF-18 will likely never see Link-22, so there will always be some generational differences.



Once again, a good point that is also irrelevant as we know we are planing on replacing both aircraft. That being said, if we were to install Link 22 on an CF-188, it would still be able to talk to a F-35's link 22. If we wanted to buy Typhoon, we could still fly and talk to anyone in NATO no problem.

And FYI, theres a reason why a CP-140 still has Link 11 and not Link 16..........OTH capability. Link 16 is LOS only.


----------



## Kalatzi (10 Apr 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Used British Subs anyone???
> 
> Reportable: "At the moment, none of the British-built diesel boats is capable of firing the navy's stock of torpedoes."



I truly hate to say it  but therewas some speculation that our role with these things, was to provide diesel subs as opfor for the US. Not complaining. 

Seems ther are developing a UUV to do the same thing. 

And since the RN unloaded some duds on us


----------



## Occam (10 Apr 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Of course there is but focusing strictly on what label we place on an aircraft is unproductive. It is meaningless. One must analyze the capabilities and aircraft has and not what abstract generation it is supposedly from.



I don't think anyone is saying that we slavishly refer to aircraft solely as X-generation or Y-generation.  In broad terms, it's a lot easier to refer to an aircraft's capabilies as being from a particular generation than to list all the individual specs anytime they're being compared.



> Irrelevant. Link 16 and Link 11 serve 2 different purposes.



News to me.



> Once again, a good point that is also irrelevant as we know we are planing on replacing both aircraft. That being said, if we were to install Link 22 on an CF-188, it would still be able to talk to a F-35's link 22. If we wanted to buy Typhoon, we could still fly and talk to anyone in NATO no problem.
> 
> And FYI, theres a reason why a CP-140 still has Link 11 and not Link 16..........OTH capability. Link 16 is LOS only.



If you were to install Link 22 on a CF-188, it would be compatible with everyone else's Link 22, yes.  But (generally speaking) you're not going to install Link 22 on a generation 4.0 aircraft because it's likely near the end of its service life, right?

Broad descriptions, not specifics.


----------



## FoverF (10 Apr 2011)

In my opinion, there is only one consideration that should be the deciding factor in which new fighter we choose:  How long will it take before it becomes completely obsolete for a shooting war? 

Because I want the CF to be capable of engaging in combat operations against an opponent that is capable of shooting back with up-to-date weaponry. And it is quite likely that these aircraft will not be replaced within half a century. 

Based on this, I think the best available option in this regard is the F-35.  Because of all of our practial options, I think the F-35 has the best longevity. And we are likely going to need every day of that longevity.  (I have to note that I think the F-22 would be a better choice, and I think that it would be made available to us if we had the political will and actually lobbied the Americans hard enough).


--------------------------------------------

Just for fun, using Thucydides' clean-slate approach, I come up with a larger, 2-seater (optionally manned) derivative of the YF-23. Similar to Boeing's F/A-XX proposal. Total fleet size of about 50 airframes. This would be paired with P-8s (maybe 15 of them), and a UCAV like the X-47 (40 or so airframes, almost all of them in storage at a given time). Supported by a few Bombardier-produced ASTOR/R-99/G550SEMA airframes for AEW and surveillance, and some IRIAF-style 747 tanker/C&C airframes.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Apr 2011)

Both the F-22 and F-23 were offered as two seat strike aircraft in various paper studies, being the rough equivalents of the F-111 in their proposed configurations. While interesting ideas (and possibly worth exploring), nothing ever came of this and the ideas (and the F-22 program itself) were shelved.

Once again, in the Canadian context we need long range aircraft given the distances within Canada and the even greater distances needed to project power from Canada. A heavy aircraft like the FB-22 or FB-23 proposals would also be able to do things like carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles, for example, providing a much greater degree of flexibility to the Airforce and Forces in general.

In the real world, such aircraft do not exist (The SU-34 is probably the only analogue), so once again we are back to the CF-35.


----------



## FoverF (10 Apr 2011)

Yeah, I don't think the CF has the clout to resurrect the FB-22, but it would certainly fit the bill. The Indian 2-seater variant of the PAK-FA would also likely tick the boxes, but it's obviously a non-starter for geopolitical reasons. 

But the F-22 would be a perfectly adequate substitute in my mind. I would far prefer to have single-seat F-22s than twin-seat Super Hornets.  One of the biggest things that I see coming from multi-crew fighters moving forward is their ability to manage U(C)AVs, which is something the Americans are already greatly appreciating about the F-15E. This is something a Super Hornet should have little difficulty with, as opposed to an F-22 pilot who could easily find himself busier than a one-legged man in the proverbial contest.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Apr 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> News to me.



Not to me, and yes, i dont know a bit on that subject.



> But (generally speaking) you're not going to install Link 22 on a generation 4.0 aircraft because it's likely near the end of its service life, right?



I would agree with that. But if we were to buy Typhoon and wanted link 22 ( if it doesnt come with it already) then we have it put in.........Link 22 in a Typhoon talks to link 22 in an F-35........no "generation" problem.


----------



## Occam (10 Apr 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Not to me, and yes, i dont know a bit on that subject.



That may be why.  I've instructed it.



> I would agree with that. But if we were to buy Typhoon and wanted link 22 ( if it doesnt come with it already) then we have it put in.........Link 22 in a Typhoon talks to link 22 in an F-35........no "generation" problem.



I think you just proved my point for me.  Typhoon is not a 4th generation fighter, it's a generation 4.5 fighter (new ones off the line anyways, and older ones are being updated).  Bringing a gen 4.0 up to Link-22 is pointless as the rest of the airplane is nearing the end of its service life.  Generation 4.5 aircraft are not, and can be expected to be used for many more years.  You're just not getting the broad description that Generation "whatever" is trying to convey, and why using that term is appropriate when describing aircraft capabilities in general.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Apr 2011)

Occam said:
			
		

> That may be why.  I've instructed it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2011)

On the other side of the world...

http://sortofpolitical.blogspot.com/2011/04/nation-that-takes-national-defense.html



> *A nation that takes national defense seriously, and then there's Canada...*
> Australia may buy more Super Hornets amid F-35 delays
> 
> "(Reuters) - Australia is considering buying 18 Boeing-built Super Hornet warplanes for around $1.6 billion to plug a hole in defence capabilities left by expected delays in Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a report said on Monday.
> ...



sigh


----------



## FoverF (12 Apr 2011)

Don't forget their Tiger ARH's, new AOR's, extra C-17 airframes, and the Bay-Class Amphib they just bought from the RN (in addition to the two flat-tops under construction). 

With a smaller military budget than Canada.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Apr 2011)

Do the Aussies have to worry about the votes of one province every time they procure military hardware?


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Apr 2011)

As the article said, they are in a very lonely position. If you want a lesson in just how far out an limb they can be, take a look at early 1942. A lot of their navy and three of their four active divisions (and the one that was not had most of its strength in Singapore) were in the Middle East - North Africa theatre, the RAAF did not have any modern fighters at home and the Brits balked at both returning their forces and providing them with modern equipment. To make matters worse, the Japanese carrier task force that attacked Pearl Harbor did the same to Darwin a short while later. (A lesson in sea power?)

Sorry for the hijack, but it explains a lot of their attitude towards defence spending.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As the article said, they are in a very lonely position. If you want a lesson in just how far out an limb they can be, take a look at early 1942. A lot of their navy and three of their four active divisions (and the one that was not had most of its strength in Singapore) were in the Middle East - North Africa theatre, the RAAF did not have any modern fighters at home and the Brits balked at both returning their forces and providing them with modern equipment. To make matters worse, the Japanese carrier task force that attacked Pearl Harbor did the same to Darwin a short while later. (A lesson in sea power?)
> 
> Sorry for the hijack, but it explains a lot of their attitude towards defence spending.




:highjack:
The Brits balked at providing us with modern equipment, too - leading, eventually (1942/43), to an emergency refit and retraining programme for an overstretched, ill-equipped and under-trained Canadian Navy.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Apr 2011)

And....to hijack this even more.....Australia does not have a "big brother" .


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> And....to hijack this even more.....Australia does not have a "big brother" .



ff topic:

Interestingly enough Australia is being _wooed_ by America, China and even India - all offering sweetheart trade deals and more if Australia will just stop dealing, on favourable terms, with the other two. Thus far the Aussies have resisted all the blandishments, including from the USA.

 :highjack:    :sorry:


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Apr 2011)

ERC



> The Brits balked at providing us with modern equipment, too - leading, eventually (1942/43), to an emergency refit and retraining programme for an overstretched, ill-equipped and under-trained Canadian Navy.



I _believe_ that part of the problem was Mackenzie King's instance that the forces be supplied with Cdn manufactured and in some cases designed (Ram tanks) equipment as much as possible. WRT the Navy, Cdn GE radar that froze solid, Corvettes that would not be withdrawal from operations to make modifications. Cdn Corvettes were considered "wet" as the British lengthened the forecastle on theirs, Canada delayed. After all we had to continue to build the third largest Navy. 

Often Cdn Film Unit captioned photos stating the equipment in the photo was "built at Ford Ontario" plant.

At the Quebec Conference, Mackenzie King was the host, not a participant. He was driven around and around the hotel until the delayed completion of the conference just to join FDR and Churchill for a photo op to dupe the Cdn people into thinking he was a wheel.

Yes it was wartime feel good propaganda. King was a Liberal. He fought the war as a politician. "Conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription.", while Cdn infantry units were well below strength. How many casualties did this cost? Look at some of the headstones in Europe. The dead are not, e.g. all 18-25 YOA. I asked myself why my regiment has headstones for Rifleman (Privates) in their thirties and forties in 1944/45.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Apr 2011)

A few comments on points above:

First: Australia's military budget is bigger than Canada's (2010: AUS: 24 B US$, CAN: 22.8 B US$ - in %of GDP: AUS: 2% CAN: 1.4%);

Second, re: WWII: It was the Canadian government - under the direction of C.D. Howe - minister of everything - that insisted on Canada profiting from the war as much as possible to industrialize the country. Canadian corvettes coming back from the UK with better electronics or upgraded AA guns saw them striped in Canada by the dockyards because they were not on the fitted list.

Third: The choice is not  (and should not be) between F-35's and AOR's: They are both in the "budget", so to speak. It really riles me when the parties not forming the government constantly make it sound as if it is a choice between one or the other (Most damning right now is how the Liberals in their Quebec ads - yes they are still playing different ads in French in Quebec than in English for the rest of Canada - make it sound as if the Conservatives want to spend 29 B$ on 65 fighters in one shot, while they would not spend a dime on that. This is of course false on two planes: First, the 29 B$ is spread over 30 years, making it a very reasonable program within a 24 B$ annual budget envelope of which it already forms part. Second: before we knew we would go into an election, Mr. Ignattief's position was that the purchase should go through a competitive process - not that the Liberal's would not make such purchase to replace the CF-18's. Their way may just as well produce the purchase of the same plane at about the same price, but in any event, the cost of their replacement program would not be substantially lower than what is envisaged by the Conservatives. RANT OFF!).


----------



## infantryian (12 Apr 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Mr. Ignattief's position was that the purchase should go through a competitive process



If you ever have a couple hours to kill check this out.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kNszWU7hTw">Nova JSF Battle of the X Planes</a>

These things were tested to the top of the sky... literally... 

You really see that they picked the best possible option.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Apr 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Mr. Ignattief's position was that the purchase should go through a competitive process - not that the Liberal's would not make such purchase to replace the CF-18's. Their way may just as well produce the purchase of the same plane at about the same price, but in any event, the cost of their replacement program would not be substantially lower than what is envisaged by the Conservatives. RANT OFF!).



They also said that they'll put on hold all defense procurement until they review (read: hack and slash) all of our requirements so if theres no requirement, there's no purchases.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They also said that they'll put on hold all defense procurement until they review (read: hack and slash) all of our requirements so if theres no requirement, there's no purchases.



Yeah, but we'll all get a free University education when we get out.   :


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Apr 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yeah, but we'll all get a free University education when we get out.   :



I can hardly wait.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Apr 2011)

It may be a looooong wait for Iggy to come across with the cash if he is anything like Lieberals of the past.  But I know I could use some edumacation.  Let's see, pottery class or basket weaving......


----------



## Nostix (12 Apr 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It may be a looooong wait for Iggy to come across with the cash if he is anything like Lieberals of the past.  But I know I could use some edumacation.  Let's see, pottery class or basket weaving......



I recommend "Popular Music of the 70's". Should be an easy 'A' for the ...older crowd.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Apr 2011)

Now you're talking.  Easy A++

Now back to topic with a dumb question from a non Zoomie.  Say if the F-35 is just too damn expensive or long in procurement.  Why not replace our current fleet with the Super Hornet?  They are still being made are they not, current and upgraded to meet todays needs?  Would we not get a decent bang for the buck and shut down the motormouths like Iggy at the same time.?


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Apr 2011)

Nostix said:
			
		

> I recommend "Popular Music of the 70's". Should be an easy 'A' for the ...older crowd.



Don't you start you whipper snapper!! (cackle)  ;D

I'm holding out for Political Science. >


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Apr 2011)

That would be sole-sourcing a contract to Boeing, which they didn't want all along supposedly. What the Liberals want is another multimillion dollar sourcing competition which many companies won't bid on because we aren't going to require the amount of aircraft that will make it worth their time.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Apr 2011)

Yes, that would not do.  Then again, they were the one's who ordered the 18's originally back in Trudeau's time so surely they could not balk too hard at getting the latest version.  

But, as I asked as a non SME, would the Super Hornets such as the RAAF are getting be a suitable fallback choice of ride?


----------



## aesop081 (12 Apr 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> would the Super Hornets such as the RAAF are getting be a suitable fallback choice of ride?



The RAAF super Hornets were bought as an interim capability to bridge the gap between the retirement of the F-111 and the (delayed) arrival of the F-35. The desired end0state for the RAAF is the F-35, not the Super Hornet.


----------



## FoverF (15 Apr 2011)

Sapperian said:
			
		

> If you ever have a couple hours to kill check this out.
> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kNszWU7hTw">Nova JSF Battle of the X Planes</a>
> ... You really see that they picked the best possible option.



To be quite honest, I have always thought that they chose the wrong plane.


----------



## infantryian (16 Apr 2011)

Even after all of the problems that the Boeing plane had with leaking parts and air to air refueling? Not to mention the plane that was built did not meet the maneuverability requirement. But I am not a pilot, and who knows what I could be missing.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They also said that they'll put on hold all defense procurement until they review (read: hack and slash) all of our requirements so if theres no requirement, there's no purchases.



The requirement for these fighters comes in great part from this little document we signed a while back: The North American Airspace Defense Agreement (NORAD). Put simply, if the Liberals found that having fighters is not a requirement for Canada anymore, then they would have a rude awakening when the American would start to fly over our territory to defend themselves - without asking. As such a scenario would be even worse for the Liberals politically (with the fallout in the population), I have no doubt that their review of national defense will yield a "requirement" in that area. 

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for front line warships, main battle tanks, heavy guns and MRAP vehicles. Left to the current Liberal thinking, I am afraid we may be heading for a weak coast guard and a territorial army capable of aid to powers ops only.


----------



## Zoomie (17 Apr 2011)

It's all an election sham that the Liberals are playing.  They secretly like the deal but have been instructed to decry the program publicly.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Apr 2011)

Sapperian said:
			
		

> Even after all of the problems that the Boeing plane had with leaking parts and air to air refueling? Not to mention the plane that was built did not meet the maneuverability requirement. But I am not a pilot, and who knows what I could be missing.



Right now the F-35 is suffering similar teething problems, and I can recall horror stories way back during the initial fielding of the F-14/15/16/18 generation of fighters. How well or poorly the F-32 would have done is now a question of alternative history, unless we decide to have the Phantom Works whip up a batch of 65 just for us...


----------



## observor 69 (27 Apr 2011)

How? The Deadly Question for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Air Power Australia - Australia's Independent Defence Think Tank



How will the intended 2,443 F-35s JSF impose air dominance for the USA and its Allies? That is the question to ask. 

Search the Internet for material on the JSF and you will find terabyte after terabyte of articles, pictures, Powerpoint presentations, PDFs, tables and laudatory Blogs. And how much relates to how the JSF will deliver this capability? You will find assertions and statement such as ‘six times better Relative Loss Exchange Ratio than legacy aircraft’ [1], or ‘The operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30-1 for the F-22, 3-1 for the F-35 and 1-1 or less for the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16’[2]. 

And how will the F-35 JSF perform, not against truly obsolete legacy aircraft like the Su-27SK and the MiG-29, but against modern fighters like the Su-35S? We can answer these questions with a head-to-head analysis of the two aircraft. 

Air combat is a complex mix of art, science and engineering. Aircraft performance, weapons performance, networked sensors and pilot skill all contribute to the final Loss Exchange Ratio (LER). The only simplification is that aircraft approach, engage in combat and the survivors depart. This activity can be examined in a ‘kill-chain’ with the following stages: ‘Detect-Identify-Engage-Disengage-Destroy’ (DIED2). 

Here is a scenario. In the ‘Blue’ corner, we have a flight of four F-35A JSFs, each armed with four AIM-120D Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles and the 25 mm GD ATP GAU-22/A cannon. No additional weapons or fuel are carried, because these would compromise the JSFs' “low observability” to X-Band radar. In the ‘Red’ corner, we have a flight of four Su-35S, each armed with four RVV-SD Active Radar Seeker BVR Missiles, four RVV-SD Infra-Red (IR) Seeker BVR missiles, two RVV-MD Within Visual Range (WVR) missiles, the 30mm GSh-301 cannon, KNIRTI SAP-518 jammers on the wingtips and a 6,000 litre conformal tank between the engines. Each aircraft has the full range of sensors and countermeasures. 

See Table at Link

At the end of the kill-chain, it seems, prima facie, that the Su-35S has all the ‘right stuff’ for air combat, while the F-35 JSF does not. This should come as no surprise, because the design brief for the JSF was that the F-22A would ‘sanitise’ airspace and deliver air dominance, making it safe for the Joint STRIKE Fighter to deliver follow-up strike capabilities. 

Now that the F-22A Raptor program is being terminated with insufficient aircraft to deliver air dominance, this role is now being assigned to the F-35 JSF. 

Given the intent of the OSD to employ the F-35 Joint Strike fighter as an air dominance fighter, the fundamental and unanswered question is: 

 HOW?

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html


----------

