# F-22 or F-35



## guns_and_roses

Would the Raptor be a better choice then the lightning for Canada? There both very capable aircraft, but what would Canada benefit most from? What are the pros and cons of each aircraft? Topic is to debate what Canada should buy to replace the Hornet.


----------



## tomahawk6

The Raptor is an air superiority fighter, but like the F-15 may morph into a strike fighter but the F-35 is primarily a strike aircraft so they really fill seperate roles.


----------



## DirtyDog

Errrrrr..... I don't know what to say.

where do you start?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

On the topic of F22s & CAS:



> *F-22 Prepped For CAS*
> 
> October 1, 2007: The U.S. Air Force is getting its new F-22 stealth  fighter ready for service in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though air force generals insist this is not likely to happen. Last month, an F-22  successfully dropped its first SDB (small diameter bomb). This is a  completely new smart bomb design, weighing only 250 pound (PHOTO). This weapon  has a shape that?s more like that of a missile than a bomb (70 inches  long, 190 millimeters in diameter), with the guidance system built in.
> 
> The smaller blast from the SDB is still pretty substantial (51 pounds  of explosives). A new SDB design has a Focused Lethality Munition  (FLM) warhead, which reduces the number of metal fragments created  when the bomb explodes, and increases the blast effect. This is meant  to reduce casualties to nearby civilians.
> 
> An F-22 can carry eight SDBs in its internal bomb bays, in addition to  four air-to-air missiles. But why send F-22 into Iraq and Afghanistan?  There are several reasons. One is combat experience. OK, there are  plenty of A-10s, F-16s and F-18s available to drop smart bombs, so why  use an F-22? Because the F-22 has not been in a combat zone yet, and  you need to see how the aircraft reacts to the stresses and conditions  only found in a combat zone. But there are other reasons as well. Iraq  is right next to Syria and Iran, two countries with lots of Russian  air defense radars that F-22s can play with. Afghanistan also has Iran  as a neighbor, as well as a small border with China. Letting those  countries get a look at the F-22 also has some psychological impact.
> 
> Moreover, lacking an air-to-air opponent, dropping smart bombs for ground troops might be the only work F-22s will get for a while. This  CAS (Close Air Support) mission is all the air force has been doing  for the past four years. Might as well get the F-22 in shape for it.



http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20071001.aspx


----------



## aesop081

Current US policy is that it will not export the F-22

I guess that part of your debate is closed for now.


Braveheart......

Read this first :


http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44917.0.html


----------



## tomahawk6

All it takes is money. ;D


----------



## aesop081

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> All it takes is money. ;D



or a vivid imagination....... :


----------



## DirtyDog

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> All it takes is money. ;D


It'll take more then money for us to get our hands on a Raptor.

Perhaps if you get another Clinton in office.... but then of course, the Chinese will have first dibs.


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable

Let's not forget that F-22s are running at about $200M a piece right now. Even with the recent favorable trend in exchange rates I could hardly see Canada committing that kind of money for anything to do with combat.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> Let's not forget that F-22s are running at about $200M a piece right now.



Source?


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Source?



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm


----------



## ringo

If Raptors were dedicated to NORAD Canada would have as good a chance to acquire the aircraft as any US ally, I'd like to see a split buy of F-22's and F-35B STOVL to replace CF-18's  but it's unlikely to happen.


----------



## aesop081

ringo said:
			
		

> If Raptors were dedicated to NORAD Canada would have as good a chance to acquire the aircraft as any US ally,



Indeed we have as good a chance as any US ally  ;D 

 ......they wont export it to anyone.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm


That is rather misleading as it rolls all of the fixed R&D cost into the reduced order (which is starting to look like it will be increased with the grounding of the F15s): unit cost is more like <$100MM.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Indeed we have as good a chance as any US ally  ;D
> 
> ......they wont export it to anyone.



There has been some discussion of the Japanese acquiring a (less capable) export version ... but as I think you are suggesting, it has more to do with politics than anything else.



> A Lockheed Martin official heavily involved in the Raptor program told ITAF Feb. 14 that a proposal to alter course and sell the Raptor to Japan is working its way through the Air Force. Lockheed is leading development and production work on the service's newest fighter. ... Air Combat Command chief Gen. Ronald Keys told ITAF Feb. 2 after his remarks at a conference in Lake Buena Vista, FL, that service officials are debating the notion of putting the F-22A on the international market.
> 
> ...
> 
> “It's hard to envision the F-22A with its current capabilities being exported, even to our closest allies. Its capabilities would almost certainly have to be ‘watered down' for export,” according to Christopher Bolkcom, an analyst at the Congressional Research Service in Washington.


 http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,88282,00.html

IMHO, the only chance you'll see a CF pilot in an F22 is on exchange (and even that is a maybe).


----------



## peaches

We are only one election away from becoming the USA advisary, so NO, they will not sell us F22's.  The F35 is for the export market, and at $40 million each we may see 100.


----------



## observor 69

peaches said:
			
		

> We are only one election away from becoming the USA advisary, so NO, they will not sell us F22's.  The F35 is for the export market, and at $40 million each we may see 100.



If Hillier is CDS I am not sure he would envision his military, small smart, with such a high number of expensive aircraft.


----------



## peaches

100 is not a high number, 1000 is!!  We have seen that 80 CF18s is not enough, we are having trouble sustaining a NORAD & CAS commitment with only 80 jets, keeping in mind a larger number of them belong to the tarining squadron and are not avail for ops.  If we decided with the F-35 to do all our OT training in the USA, and made 410 another Ops squadron, then yes, 80 jets would do.....


----------



## prom

peaches said:
			
		

> We are only one election away from becoming the USA advisary, so NO, they will not sell us F22's.  The F35 is for the export market, and at $40 million each we may see 100.



source?

In my searching I have found $37 million as the inital projected unt cost. Real cost as of 2005 had driven the projected cost to $100 million per unit.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-program.htm


Just to note on the F-22 its per unit cost is falling like a rock and is exected to be below $75 million by the time #100 is produced and continue to fall after that point.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2003/0303FA22.asp


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

prom said:
			
		

> is exected to be below $75 million by the time #100 is produced



That article is 4 1/2 years old: #100 has already been delivered ... unit cost is $97MM, per the globalsecurity link below.


----------



## tomahawk6

While the US has stated that it wont export the F-22, it may be the only way to keep the production line going and possibly bring down aircraft cost. The cost of the aircraft is probably the biggest limitation to most potential buyers. Anyway I found that allied pilots have trained to fly the B-2,F-117 and F-22.



> In July, RAF Flight Lt. Dan Robinson completed flight training in the F-22A Raptor at Tyndall AFB, Fla., with the 43rd Fighter Squadron. As the first allied pilot to train on the fifth generation fighter, Robinson is now serving a three-year tour at Langley AFB, Va., with the 27th Fighter Squadron.
> 
> British pilots have been assigned to F-117 Nighthawk squadrons almost since that aircraft became operational in the early 1980s.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I have no inside knowledge of course, but I wouldn't just bet the whole farm that the US won't someday export F-22s, especially if it keeps the line production lines open and allows the USAF to to buy more airframes at a slightly cheaper cost.  The Israelis and Japanese have both expressed interest- I would bet on the Japanese having the best chance.

I'm not sure if they were offered to us, if it would make sense to buy some.  I could see that case for a couple of dozen to be operated in a NORAD context, with another fighter type being purchased for expeditionary work, especially if we did not insist on any mods or that we conduct any OTU activity in Canada.  My back of the cigarette pack figuring puts the cost of 24 F-22s at around $8 billion Cdn.

IMHO, 80 F-35s are going to cost around $17 Billion anyway, if we go that route. 

Pile that ontop of all of warships needing replacement between 2010 and 2020, along with buying Chinooks, C-130Js, FWSAR, UAVs, Aurora replacements...that is a crapload of cash.  Will the Canadian public stand for it?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Pile that ontop of all of warships needing replacement between 2010 and 2020, along with buying Chinooks, C-130Js, FWSAR, UAVs, Aurora replacements...that is a crapload of cash.  Will the Canadian public stand for it?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8gNz8F2j6U


----------



## MarkOttawa

> In April 2007, the Pentagon revealed that the total cost of the JSF had increased to $299.8 billion for 2,458 aircraft, or $121.97 million per aircraft. This is far in excess of the prices mentioned by Lockheed Martin, the program’s prime contractor, which are generally in the $60-$70 million range...


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.31267251.1196177158.spoIl38AAAEAAFQjW3oAAAAS&manuel_call_cat=5&manuel_call_prod=88477&manuel_call_mod=feature&modele=jdc_inter

The story is about a less-capable version for foreigners to get around US arms export regulations.

More on Canada and the F-35 here:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/canada-and-f-35-non-story.html

Meanwhile Australia is already buying  24 F/A-18Fs regardless of their F-35 decision: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-buy-24-super-hornets-as-interim-gapfiller-to-jsf-02898/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ali G

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.31267251.1196177158.spoIl38AAAEAAFQjW3oAAAAS&manuel_call_cat=5&manuel_call_prod=88477&manuel_call_mod=feature&modele=jdc_inter
> 
> The story is about a less-capable version for foreigners to get around US arms export regulations.



Well, understandably, the US couldn't just give their hard-earned stealth technology away like that. I guess national security comes before foreign relations.


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-35-jsf-hit-by-serious-design-problems-04311/

by Johan Boeder in The Netherlands. Earlier versions of this article have been published in the Dutch press and Defense-Aerospace. DID has worked with the author to create an edited, updated version with full documentation of sources.

On May 3, 2007, during the 19th test flight of the prototype of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a serious electrical malfunction occurred in the control of the plane. After an emergency landing the malfunction could be identified as a crucial problem, and it became clear that redesign of critical electronic components was necessary. Producer Lockheed Martin and program officials first announced there was a minor problem, and later on they avoided any further publicity about the problems. 

The delay has become serious, however, and rising costs for the JSF program seem to be certain. In Holland, Parliament started a discussion again last week. Understanding the background behind these delays, and the pressures on European governments, is important to any realistic assessment of the F-35's European strategy – and of the procurement plans in many European defense ministries…

The Fateful Incident

On December 15, 2006 the experienced Lockheed Martin chief test pilot Jon Beesley takes off for the first time with the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter), also known as F-35 Lighting II. The coming years, some 3000 Joint Strike Fighters are scheduled to be delivered to replace F-16 and Harrier fighters in the USA and in the air forces ad navies of several European countries. In most cases, replacement contenders are some combination of the Eurofighter, Rafale, Gripen and JSF. In many cases, the new fighters must also be available by 2014-2018 ultimately, when early-model F-16s bought in Europe will reach their end-of-life stage. Any further delay brings high maintenance costs, and too low operational availability. 

After a series of 7 quite successful flights, the test flight program stops in February 2007 to fix some minor problems in the JSF flight control software. This is not unusual in the early stages of a test flight program. In March 2007, the JSF returns to flight status and takes off for the first supersonic flight. At the end of April the JSF prototype AA-1 takes off several times a week. But then, destiny strikes. On May 3, 2007 with the second test pilot Jeff Knowles at the stick, a serious malfunction hits the JSF. At 38,000 feet (12 km) level flight and at a speed of some 800 km/hour, the plane executed a planned, 360-degree roll but experienced power loss in the electrical system about halfway through the manoeuvre. 

In an emergency procedure, power is restored and Jeff Knowles regains control of the plane. The pilot cuts short this 19th test flight and makes an emergency landing in Fort Worth, TX. Due to control problems with right wing flaperons, the JSF has to make that landing at an exceptional high speed of 220 knots (350 km/hr). The plane's undercarriage, brakes and tires are damaged. The plane is stopped, surrounded by emergency vehicles, and towed away, but several eyewitnesses take pictures of the emergency landing. 

Lockheed Martin technicians identify a component in the 270-power supply as the culprit in the near-accident. The JSF's new technology includes new electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs) for the flight control system, replacing more conventional hydraulic systems. In April 2007, chief test pilot Jon Beesley told Code One Magazine that the EHAs were production versions, and that testing could be restricted to the AA-1:

"The electro-hydrostatic actuators, or EHAs, are another excellent example of risk reduction we're accomplishing on AA-1. This is the first real electric jet. The flight control actuators, while they have internal closed-loop hydraulic systems, are controlled and driven by electricity—not hydraulics. The F-35 is the only military aircraft flying with such a system. We proved that the approach works on six flights of the AFTI F-16 during the concept demonstration phase of the JSF program. We already have many more flights on EHAs on this test program. Because we are flying production versions of the EHAs on AA-1, we won't have to prove the EHA design on subsequent F-35s."

After several weeks of evaluations, the engineers learn that there are serious design problems in this new electrical system. Expensive redesign will be necessary.

'No serious problem'?

Normally whenever the JSF takes an itty-bitty baby step, the manufacturer reports it to the media for PR purposes. First engine run? Reported. Roll-out? Reported. First flight? Reported. First Wheel-up flight? Reported. But "first emergency landing"? Not reported. Fully two weeks later, on May 17, 2007, chief test pilot Beesley comments in a short press bulletin: "It was not a serious problem and the pilot never lost control of the airplane". Company officials say they don't expect any delays in the flight-test program as a result of the incident, and repairs will be combined with some regular, planned maintenance. Plans call for the fighter to return to flight status in June 2007. 

However, on July 10, 2007 Flight International announces disturbing news. Lockheed Martin official Bobby Williams now explains that there is a serious design problem in the aircraft's electrical system. The fault was caused by a shortcoming in the 270 volt system, when a lead inside a box touched the lid. A complete review of close-tolerance spacing and all electrical boxes is necessary. He adds that: "We will be back into flight in August."

Another fact was discovered via a military employee of one of the European air forces, who works within the JSF project team, and is a liaison person for several air forces. He says that flying in 2012 with the JSF may be safe and the JSF can be used as a plane to fly around. But, the several software modules for weapons system integration will not be ready. Ground attack capability is the priority, so early-build F-35s will primarily be "bomb trucks" until the additional software modules can be tested and loaded. Air superiority capabilities will be restricted, and completed only after 2015. This means that full multi-role capability is possible by 2016 at the earliest, if and only if no major problems occur in development and testing of the weapon systems software. 

So, will there be JSFs on European airbases without complete air superiority capability in 2016? A sobering thought in the light of the intensifying scrambling from UK and Norway since Russian TU-95 Bears have began entering air space near Norway again in 2006.

Engine problems

Nor are these the only challenging problems facing the F-35 program. The F-35C naval variant's Hamilton Sundstrand power generator was mistakenly designed to only 65% of the required electric output. To accommodate the required increase, it will also be necessary to redesign the gearbox for the standard Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, which will be fitted into the conventional F-35A version as well as the naval F-35C. The contract announced by the US Department of Defense in August 2007 says that this engine update won't be ready for use until the end of 2009, which is almost the beginning of low-rate initial production.

Lockheed Martin can issue a subcontract to Hamilton Sundstrand to fix the F135's power generator without any publicity, and they have done so. As of December 1, 2007, neither Lockheed Martin's nor Hamilton Sundstrand's 2007 news archives show any trace of this award. Pratt & Whitney has a separate government contract for the F135 engine, however, and the award's size forces the Pentagon to announce the award under its rules for publicizing contracts.

Although it seemed probable that last October the JSF would fly again, a new problem arose. During a test run of the F135 engine, part of the engine was blown up by overheating. On November 14, 2007, an eyewitness took pictures of the transportation of a new F135 engine. The date for test flight number 20 (of the scheduled 5,000 test flights) is still unknown.

Manufacturer wants to alter JSF testing to save money

In an article that Bloomberg News publishes on August 31, 2007, it is announced that Lockheed Martin is exceeding the budget on the first phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program. The manufacturer warns that the reserves will be spent by the end of 2008, unless cuts are made. Lockheed Martin is seeking US Defense Department approval to lessen the number of test aircraft and personal plus hundreds of test flights to save money, and replenish a reserve fund. 

It wants to build 2 fewer prototypes, and skip 800 of the 5,000 planned test flights. This after only 18 successful and 1 almost fatal testflight in half a year's time. 

Officialy, Lockheed Martin says the reason for the rising deficit is: "the costs spent on redesigning a critical electronic part that failed during a May test flight." Redesign of something as crucial as control systems in this stage of such a complex project has to alert all involved partners and governments. 

Questions in Dutch Parliament

This main threat to the Joint Strike Fighter program, in terms of growing costs and risks for planned delivery should have been made public long ago. In the Dutch parliament the Secretary of Defence was questioned on Monday 19 November when the facts about the JSF delay and rising costs were published in several Dutch newspapers on Sunday, November 18, 2007.

The Situation in Europe

The overall Joint Strike Fighter program is now projected to cost $299 billion, 28% more than its estimate of $233 billion when it started in October 2001. The number of F-25 fighters to be produced, originally estimated at over 3,500, will not be higher than 2,300 in the initial production orders from all partners. Some US sources even speak about an estimated 1,700.

Australia has decided to buy the more traditional, but advanced and reliable F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet, in order to avoid any risks to their air defense stemming from F-35 schedule slips. Some NATO countries, including JSF partner nations Norway and Denmark, are considering other options entirely, instead of the JSF. One European candidate is the advanced but expensive twin-engined Eurofighter, already in service with the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, and Austria. Another European candidate is the new Saab JAS-39 Gripen Demo, an advanced version of the proven Saab Gripen already operational with Sweden with NATO members the Czech Republic and Hungary. 

While the F-35's embedded sensor arrays will continue to offer superior situational awareness, both of its biggest European alternatives are expected to have similar advanced AESA radars and electronics. They would also enter service with multi-role capabilities, without the development risks of the JSF. Saab's Gripen also claims a price per flight hour less than 60% of the JSF or Eurofighter. 

The pattern to date is a disturbing one, where a string of difficulties that threaten to have serious impacts on the program's schedule and costs are minimized by the manufacturer and its industrial and governmental partners, or simply not announced. Note that until the recent set of questions in Parliament, the manufacturer succeeded in keeping politicians, the public, and most of the press unaware of the very serious fact that since May 3, 2007 the flight test program has been stopped completely.

Without sufficient transparency, it is difficult for the public to evaluate the fighter procurement choices that will have to be made in the coming years by governments all over Europe – and even more difficult to simply trust assertions that all will be well.

As is our practice, DID has contacted both the Joint Strike Fighter program office and Lockheed Martin, inviting them to offer substantive responses that directly address the issues raised in this article. If these are forthcoming, they will also receive Guest Article status, and a link will be included here.


----------



## belka

I don't see why we can't just upgrade with the E or F model Superhornets? Pilots don't have to completely re-learn a new aircraft and saves the techs months and months of training on a new airframe.


----------



## GK .Dundas

NINJA said:
			
		

> I don't see why we can't just upgrade with the E or F model Superhornets? Pilots don't have to completely re-learn a new aircraft and saves the techs months and months of training on a new airframe.


 Actually it is a new airframe  I seem to recall there is only about 20 % compatibility between a F18 C/D and F18 E/F. Now I could be wrong but that is the figure I've heard.


----------



## belka

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Actually it is a new airframe  I seem to recall there is only about 20 % compatibility between a F18 C/D and F18 E/F. Now I could be wrong but that is the figure I've heard.



Still, 20% is better than 0.


----------



## aesop081

NINJA said:
			
		

> Still, 20% is better than 0.



Also remember that the F/A-18E/F was designed and procured only as an interim aircraft until JSF comes into service. Even the RAAF has decided to buy it to replace the F-111C as an interim measure until it gets its F-35s.


----------



## Spencer100

The New Labour Gov. of OZ is think about the F-22.  If they are thinking about it................. >



http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw120307p2.xml&headline=New%20Australian%20Government%20Wants%20to%20Consider%20F-22s

New Australian Government Wants to Consider F-22s

Dec 2, 2007 
By Bradley Perrett 

Australia’s new Labor government is likely to join Japan in seeking to overturn the U.S. ban on exporting the F-22 Raptor, although Canberra is far from deciding it wants to buy the Lockheed Martin stealth fighter.

The government of incoming Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who won a landslide Nov. 24 election victory, is showing a commitment to the armed forces at least as strong as its predecessor’s, with a defense policy that calls for greater readiness for the Australian Defense Force (ADF), not cutbacks.

Australian defense analysts expect Labor to back the main procurement decisions of the former Liberal-National government of John Howard, although the new administration plans a policy review and might face a budget shortfall in a few years.

While in opposition, new Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon repeatedly called for Australia to consider the F-22 instead of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning, the previous government’s preferred next fighter.

Under project Air 6000, the Royal Australian Air Force will next decade replace its 70-odd F/A-18A and B Hornets and, possibly, the 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets that Canberra ordered this year. Up to 100 combat aircraft are planned.

Though Fitzgibbon hasn’t gone as far as saying Australia should buy the Raptor, in the election campaign he said that Labor would ask Washington to lift the ban on sales so Canberra could reconsider its options.

The Australian Defense Dept. strongly prefers the cheaper and more flexible F-35 over the F-22, whose design emphasizes air combat. The department is likely to present Fitzgibbon with the same advice now that he has become its minister.

The U.S. Congress reaffirmed the ban on F-22 exports as recently as July. Japan, which is keen to buy the aircraft, responded by launching development of its own stealth fighter demonstrator (AW&ST Sept. 3, p. 24).

Rudd plans to pull Australian troops out of Iraq, but only after consultation with the Iraqi government and with the U.S. and Britain. He may decide simply to switch emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan, following Britain’s lead.

Moreover, there’s no other sign that the new government lacks commitment to Australia’s U.S. alliance. Rudd, a Mandarin-speaking former diplomat, has always voiced unusually strong support for the alliance, and he lists it first among the three pillars that support his defense policy. (The others are active membership of the United Nations and comprehensive engagement with Australia’s neighbors.)

Any changes in procurement policy are most likely to appear in a planned review expected next year.

“The new defense white paper will address the requirements for the ADF to deploy more units at higher readiness levels, deploy at shorter notice [and] sustain operations for longer periods,” according to the official Labor policy statement.

The defense budget has been expanded by 3% a year above inflation since 2001, and Labor says it will stick to that policy at least until 2016.

But Australia is planning significant new capabilities for its armed forces while renewing old ones. Analyst Mark Thomson notes that the budget is more stretched than generally realized, saying “the new government will find that there is not enough money to do all the things the previous government planned to do.”

Thomson, of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, says the budget will buy new capabilities but doesn’t have the funds to sustain them. For example, it will pay for six Boeing Wedge­tail airborne early warning and control aircraft, based on the 737, but there’s no additional money for their running costs.

The same goes for extra NH90 helicopters that Eurocopter will build in Brisbane and a pair of 27,000-ton assault ships to be supplied by Spain’s Navantia.

Thomson expects that the Defense Dept.’s habitual slowness in getting projects to contract might cover the gap. If it doesn’t, he thinks the government, awash with cash amid a strong economy, will probably allocate the extra money.

Labor’s policy largely avoids mentioning specific equipment requirements, but two programs for the Royal Australian Navy are emphasized.

One is that Labor wants to get an early start on preliminary work on replacements for the navy’s six Collins Class submarines, even though none of those boats is due to leave service before 2025. Local construction will be necessary, Labor says, partly because an off-the-shelf design wouldn’t fill future requirements—meaning it wouldn’t be big enough to deliver the necessary range and weapons load.

The new government also describes an order for a fourth air-defense destroyer as a “strong option.” Local contractor ASC has been tapped to build three of the 6,250-ton ships to a design by Navantia. Former Defense Minister Brendan Nelson, now leader of the opposition, says a fourth unit would cost A$1.5 billion ($1.3 billion)—an extraordinarily high figure for a production design, indicating the great premium paid for local development and construction.

The new government doesn’t appear likely to drop support for local industry, however—most notably, shipbuilding.


----------



## aesop081

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> The New Labour Gov. of OZ is think about the F-22.  If they are thinking about it................. >



Australia can think about the F-22 all it wants.....




> The U.S. Congress reaffirmed the ban on F-22 exports as recently as July.


----------



## karl28

CDN Aviator  

       That maybe the position of the US  Congress  but  you never know how things can turn out  . Maybe the US will say to the Australians  that if you want to own the F-22  than stay committed to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan  for a few more years  and will give you a deal on them .         That's of course totally hypothetical situation and not based on any facts but you never know with politics .


----------



## aesop081

karl28 said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator
> 
> That maybe the position of the US  Congress  but  you never know how things can turn out



Geez...why didnt i think of that ?   :

Fact remains that at this time, the US Congress refuses to allow the F-22 to be exported. US politicians are well aware of Australian and Japanese wishes, just like they are aare of the effects export sales would have on the manufacturer. Knowing all that, the decision was still made, and reaffirmed, that no export sales will be allowed.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

The Australian has a slightly different take:



> *Pentagon to push sale of fighter*
> 
> Cameron Stewart | December 05, 2007
> 
> *THE Pentagon is expected to pressure the Rudd Government for an early commitment to buy the controversial Joint Strike Fighter, despite the project being plagued by rising costs and technical problems.
> 
> Alarm is growing in US military circles about the cost of the JSF, or F-35, and the reluctance of any US allies, including Australia, to commit to early orders.*
> 
> Australian and US officials have held talks on reducing costs, including a reduction of test flight aircraft and greater use of ground-based testing.
> 
> No country wants to purchase the early batches of the F-35s, due to start in 2009, because they will be prohibitively expensive compared with those sold in later years, when larger-scale production runs will reduce unit costs by more than half.
> 
> The Howard government's $15billion plan to place an order for up to 100 F-35s late next year for delivery in 2013 is now on hold, as the Rudd Government conducts a review of options for the air force.
> 
> The review will examine all alternatives in replacing Australia's aged F-111 strike bombers and F/A-18 fighters, including the feasibility of the world's most potent but expensive fighter, the F-22 Raptor.
> 
> However, *the US is likely to seize the opportunity of a newly elected government to step up the pressure on Canberra to place early orders for the F-35.
> 
> Media reports this week from Fort Worth, Texas, where the F-35 is being built by Lockheed Martin, suggest the rising cost of the F-35 is deterring US allies from placing orders.
> 
> According to the Star-Telegram newspaper, Lockheed and the Pentagon have been talking with Australian officials and other JSF partner nations about placing orders. *...


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22872206-31477,00.html  from Defense Industry Daily: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/retired-raaf-vicemarshal-abandon-f35-buy-f22s-updated-02681/


----------



## GK .Dundas

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Also remember that the F/A-18E/F was designed and procured only as an interim aircraft until JSF comes into service. Even the RAAF has decided to buy it to replace the F-111C as an interim measure until it gets its F-35s.


S matter of fact it wasn't designed as an interim aircraft the USN' F/A 18 E/F 's were designed and built to get around the Hornet's perceived  failings short range etc.( not to mention getting around Congress hence the belief the Hornet and Super Hornet are basically  different marks of the same model aircraft)
 The JSF is primarily a strike aircraft it is the end result of a couple of disastrous decisions made by NAVAIR in the 80's amongst them the dropping the A6F program  in favor of the the never built A 12 .


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on F-35 problems:
http://www.dailytech.com/Lockheed%20F35%20Program%20Plagued%20with%20Problems%20Remains%20Grounded/article9924.htm



> Earlier this week, DailyTech reported that the Pentagon is trying to sweep some money under the rug to pay for additional Lockheed F-22 fighter planes. Increased concerns over the reliability and structural soundness of the 30-year-old F-15 have lead to the calls for more of the $132 million USD F-22s.
> 
> It appears that the old F-15 isn't the only aircraft in the U.S. arsenal that is having problems. The F-35 program is facing setbacks of its own. The F-35 program suffered a serious setback on May 3 when a critical electrical system failure occurred while the jet was traveling 500 MPH at 38,000 feet -- the prototype plane, which was on its 19th test flight, had to be brought down for an emergency landing by the pilot and subsequent test flights were cancelled. The plane hasn't flown since and a scheduled flight for December 4 was scrubbed at the last minute.
> 
> Defense Industry Daily reports that the electrical system failure was attributed to a problem with the new 270 volt power supply that is used to control the aircraft's electro-hydrostatic actuators (EHAs).
> 
> "This is the first real electric jet. The flight control actuators, while they have internal closed-loop hydraulic systems, are controlled and driven by electricity -- not hydraulics," said F-35 chief test pilot Jon Beesley. Unfortunately for Lockheed, the EHA system now has to be redesigned to prevent further incidents.
> 
> In addition, the F-35C naval version suffers a design flaw in its power generator which in turn means that the gearbox for the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine has to be redesigned -- the redesign won't be complete until the close of 2009. The Pratt & Whitney F135 faced another setback in October when the engine overheated and blew up during bench testing.
> 
> But these are the least of the F-35's problems. The F-35 is being built and will be flown in conjunction with the help of a number of allies. European countries, which are eager to get their hands on the F-35, may not have fully functional, multi-role aircraft until 2016. The problem is due to the fact *that software modules required to make the plane a competent air-superiority fighter are not yet complete and won't be until 2016 at the earliest.
> 
> As a result, the F-35 will be restricted to mainly ground-attack bombing runs* [emphasis added].
> 
> There is the issue that the number of F-35s to be produced has been reduced from 3,500 to as little as 2,300 -- effectively raising the cost per plane -- and Australia's decision to go with the F/A-18 F Block II Super Hornet as a stopgate measure until the F-35 is ready.
> 
> The rising costs for the F-35 are looming over the entire program. "Nobody is interested in getting their airplanes earlier unless we can help them mitigate the fact the earlier airplanes cost more," remarked Lockheed executive vice president and F-35 program general manager Tom Burbage to the Star-Telegram.
> 
> Costs for the program have ballooned from $30 billion USD in 2002 to $40 billion USD today. And according to the Air Force, *a single F-35 will cost $100 million USD when production is comfortably underway in 2013 -- this compares to $50 million USD for a single F-16 or $132 million USD for a single F-22 Raptor* [emphasis added].
> 
> The F-35 program mechanical/electrical/avionics problems, delays and cost overruns are becoming burdensome to all nations involved. Many countries are looking to the F-35 to replace their aging fleets because the United States wants to keep its premier F-22 fighter to itself...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## belka

It should be interesting to see what aircraft is ultimately picked to replace the 18. While the F35 may seem like a nice choice, you have to remember that it's a single-engine aircraft. Canada is massive and I don't think any pilot would want to bail-out in the middle of winter somewhere between yellowknife and the artic circle. Yes, I know that total engine failure is extremely rare, but it does happen. My best guess is our replacement will be either the F35, the Superbug or the Eurofighter.


----------



## observor 69

NINJA said:
			
		

> It should be interesting to see what aircraft is ultimately picked to replace the 18. While the F35 may seem like a nice choice, you have to remember that it's a single-engine aircraft. Canada is massive and I don't think any pilot would want to bail-out in the middle of winter somewhere between yellowknife and the artic circle. Yes, I know that total engine failure is extremely rare, but it does happen. My best guess is our replacement will be either the F35, the Superbug or the Eurofighter.



Ah yes, should we buy the F-16 or F-18 argument ...deja vu


----------



## Harry Potter

Unless the Air Force gets serious about participating in the war against terror and stops  finding all sorts of good reasons not to contribute to the expeditionary forces we have abroad, all they deserve to receive as replacement for the current CF-18 are used low-hours F-18 airframes.  Why would the Air Force need anything else when all they do is  fly domestic sovereignty missions?  This is not Air Force bashing.  It is fact.


----------



## aesop081

Harry Potter said:
			
		

> Unless the Air Force gets serious about participating in the war against terror and stops  finding all sorts of good reasons not to contribute to the expeditionary forces we have abroad,



The air force doesnt contribute eh ?



> Why would the Air Force need anything else when all they do is  fly domestic sovereignty missions?



So what you are saying is that we dont need a modern fighter to do this mission ? 



> This is not Air Force bashing.  It is fact.



No, this is your opinion, not fact


----------



## dimsum

Harry Potter said:
			
		

> Unless the Air Force gets serious about participating in the war against terror and stops  finding all sorts of good reasons not to contribute to the expeditionary forces we have abroad, all they deserve to receive as replacement for the current CF-18 are used low-hours F-18 airframes.  Why would the Air Force need anything else when all they do is  fly domestic sovereignty missions?  This is not Air Force bashing.  It is fact.



Who's flying the Hercs and Auroras in Afghanistan and the Sea Kings in the Gulf?  :-\


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Who's flying the Hercs and Auroras in Afghanistan and the Sea Kings in the Gulf?  :-\



And it must be the army flying the Globemaster into Afghanistan, too (2 1/2 weeks after we got the first one) ... wtf?



			
				Harry Potter said:
			
		

> This is not Air Force bashing.  It is fact.



Yeah, right.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Harry Potter said:
			
		

> Unless the Air Force gets serious about participating in the war against terror and stops  finding all sorts of good reasons not to contribute to the expeditionary forces we have abroad, all they deserve to receive as replacement for the current CF-18 are used low-hours F-18 airframes.  Why would the Air Force need anything else when all they do is  fly domestic sovereignty missions?  This is not Air Force bashing.  It is fact.



Hey finally someone who knows what he is talking about!

I agree with this statement, its true the Air Force has to stop loafing around and get up off its butt and do something other than fly desks.

Final statement ---->  Its Opposite day, and I think Harry Potter is a great guy

Sarcasm aside those who can see the big picture, know that every element is busy, and we all do our bit.  Just because the AF doesn't have 18's over Kandahar doesn't mean that the AF is sitting here with their feet up.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Nonetheless there are no Auroras in Afstan (and who knows elsewhere) :
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/54610.45.html
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/66394.105.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Nonetheless there are no Auroras in Afstan (and who knows elsewhere) :
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/54610.45.html
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/66394.105.html
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



And that has what to do with this thread  or the opinion expressed by Harry potter ?


----------



## MarkOttawa

CDN Aviator: from Dimsum (sorry did not make the source clear):
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/68471/post-649448.html#msg649448



> Who's flying the Hercs and Auroras in Afghanistan and the Sea Kings in the Gulf?



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator: from Dimsum (sorry did not make the source clear):
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/68471/post-649448.html#msg649448
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Gotcha......i missed that in his post


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Maybe stretching here but Auroras did their time on Operation Apollo (in the "Arab-Persian Gulf region"): http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/equip/cp140/history_e.asp (though I'm sure CDN Aviator could school me on that subject!)

Dimsum would have been correct to say "Hercs and C17s in Afghanistan as well as Auroras and Sea Kings in the Gulf" ... I think his point stands.


----------



## aesop081

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> (though I'm sure CDN Aviator could school me on that subject!)



Not much else to say realy. I was not there but they did what they were sent there to do and never missed a mission for any reason.


----------



## dimsum

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Dimsum would have been correct to say "Hercs and C17s in Afghanistan as well as Auroras and Sea Kings in the Gulf" ... I think his point stands.



Er...what he said ;D


----------



## Harry Potter

The topic is about F-35 or F-22 and my post has to be read within that context.  I maintain that there is no need to buy a $100M airplane if all we do with it are sovereignty patrols in Canada.  

The time is long gone that we buy kit just to park it and look pretty.  If we don't use it, we don't need it.    

By the way, I apologize for those air transport crews.  My post was twisted out of context and used by others to pretend that your hard work was not recognized to its just value.  For the record, if it wasn't for the air transport crews, the Air force wouldn't have a whole lot to show for itself.  I know that the rotary wing guys are chomping at the bit to go too.  I only wish that the fighter guys were a little more eager to provide CAS to our own guys.

I love that we got C-17 because we are using them to their potential.  I love that we are getting new hercs, because we are using our old hercs to their potential.  I fully agree that the Sea Kings need to be replaced because they sure earned it.  We could use upgraded Auroras, but the Air Force, in its wisdom, decided that they were not needed.  But there is this great push to buy the F-35, and I simply cannot see why the Air Force needs such a platform because they have not shown any interest in deploying F-18 in the ATO for CAS missions.  I would much rather see all this money spent on more hercs, or perhaps attack helicopters.  Flown by the Air Force of course.       

There, i hope this clarifies things.  You can all un-circle the wagons guys.


----------



## aesop081

Harry Potter said:
			
		

> I maintain that there is no need to buy a $100M airplane if all we do with it are sovereignty patrols in Canada.



Based on what knowledge/experience ?



> For the record, if it wasn't for the air transport crews, the Air force wouldn't have a whole lot to show for itself.



Sure the transport guys do alot of the AF's work. I cant deny it. But the rest of the Air Force has other assigned tasks. I'm sure SAR is busy doing its job and doing it well. The LRP comunity has been busy doing counter-drug ops at home and abroad as well as surveillance of our naval aproaches ( are you areguing it doesnt need to be done ?). Sea King guys are busy supporting the Navy wherever they are in the world. We have AECs and AC Ops at various locations around the world working ATC and AWACS. Your comments are nothing short of un-educated oxygen theivery.




> I only wish that the fighter guys were a little more eager to provide CAS to our own guys.



I doubt that there is a single fighter pilot in the CF who wouldnt rather be in the sandbox dropping bombs instead of  being in cool pool beating the circuit.


----------



## Slackeur

Harry Potter said:
			
		

> The time is long gone that we buy kit just to park it and look pretty.  If we don't use it, we don't need it.



Right, so when the fighter guys were on their wine tasting trip to Italy in '99, the real reason they painted the Rat on the tail was to 'look pretty'. Gotcha.


----------



## aesop081

Slackeur said:
			
		

> Right, so when the fighter guys were on their wine tasting trip to Italy in '99, the real reason they painted the Rat on the tail was to 'look pretty'. Gotcha.



Indeed. All those "bombs dropped" markings on the jets signified the number of wineries succesfully conquered.

 ;D


----------



## Slackeur

LOL, you know, the bomb silhouette does bear a striking resemblance to a bottle. I'm sure they just added the fins to make 'em look like bombs when the teasing began.... ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> There, i hope this clarifies things.  You can all un-circle the wagons guys.



Yeah....No.  It does not clarify things.  You are the one who started this by dropping the "Air Force is sitting around doing nothing" bomb, then started backpedalling when someone more knowledgeable than you called you on your ignorance. You are the one who has greatly oversimplified the Aurora replacement issue (hint: it wasn't an Air Force decision to not replace it in a timely fashion). You are the one making (obviously) ill-informed statements about fighter force employment and fighter replacement issues.  Finally, you try and curry favour by stating that you are happy that the Sea King is being replaced because "it earned it".  Is that how you view defence policy and procurement?  A fleet or capability has to "earn" replacement?  What about capability based procurement?  What about deciding what our doctrinal needs, strategic interests or national goals are, then buying capability?  Even I would not be brazen enough to call for a Sea King replacement, if the facts did not support it.  Even by your own lame measure, what makes you think the CF-18 fleet has not "earned" replacement?  Germany and North American Defence during the Cold War; Gulf War 1; Kosovo and all of the Post-911 missions not good enough for you?

Now, I'm not saying the CF-18 must be replaced by the F-35- this is not my area of expertise (note what I just did there, Harry).  What is pretty clear is, that, unless we want to be outmatched in our own air space and not be able to go abroad in support of our national goals, we will need something a bit more sophisticated than a used F-18 (that we would get from, whom, exactly?).

Have a good day, Harry.  Please enjoy Army.ca.  Who knows, you might even learn something.


----------



## aesop081

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Now, I'm not saying the CF-18 must be replaced by the F-35- this is not my area of expertise



Same here. I'm not "hot and heavy" for the F-35 and i'm not a fighter expert. Personaly speaking i think that Typhoon would be a good fit but thats just an opinion.


----------



## armyvern

There was NO wine drank in Aviano!!  

As far as I recall.


----------



## Harry Potter

I made my point and judging by the emotion that it has stirred and by how some of you extract single elements of my posts insted of looking at the entire argument, I can tell that I hit a sore spot.  You know it, I know it, and you know that I know and that's what kills you.  I have been around long enough to know better than some of you the past contributions of the Air Force.  Some was for show, some was for real, and hats off to those guys where it is due.  But a lot of you are in for a big surprise if you think that you will convince Treasury Board to caught up $5B for a capability your leadership has been unwilling to commit to WAR.  Quit basking is the past guys.  Your leadership has seen fit to pass more than once on an opportunity to deliver REAL kinetic effects in Afghanistan.  So when money will be dolled out, it will be assigned to elements that are NEEDED and familiar.  Cargo, fix wing SAR, Tac Hel.  Now is the time to be needed, now is the time to be known.  The future leadership of the CF and of DND is being formed TODAY in Afghanistan.  The Army is there, the Navy is there, the Air Transport guys are there and everyone knows that the Tac Hel guys want to be there.  The CF is learning to fight a WAR with someone else's CAS because its own Air Force declined to send fighters.  You don't need F-35 to go to Afghanistan.  Why are you not there now??  If you're not there now, why would we believe that you will go later?  Come on, get your head out of the sand!


----------



## George Wallace

Is this "Truth or Dare"?  I am sure you know darn well why the Air Force isn't there and you are just toying with us, or maybe you really don't know.


----------



## armyvern

Way out of my lanes ... but I'm thinking that despite AF leadership -- IF the Government of Canada WANTED those AC at war ... they WOULD be.

Isn't that how it actually works in this great land of ours?

Same as -- IF the Government wants the ARMY out of Afghanistan in 09 ... we WILL be out.

BIGGER pictures exist than Leadership when you're talking wars, doctrine and policy.

Let's not write this lack of Canadian fast air in Afghanistan off to simple AF Leadership -- that's not on at all and is quite misleading of how our democratic government works.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Folks, before the tone slips any more.


----------



## Harry Potter

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> Folks, before the tone slips any more.



True.  I think we all made our point.  Good night gentlemen.  I enjoyed the debate.  
Cheers.


----------



## Slackeur

Harry Potter said:
			
		

> But a lot of you are in for a big surprise if you think that you will convince Treasury Board to caught up $5B for a capability your leadership has been unwilling to commit to WAR.  Quit basking is the past guys.  Your leadership has seen fit to pass more than once on an opportunity to deliver REAL kinetic effects in Afghanistan.  So when money will be dolled out, it will be assigned to elements that are NEEDED and familiar.  Cargo, fix wing SAR, Tac Hel.



So you are saying that only elements related to the Afstan operation are essential and should be funded? What are you basing that on, that the mission will continue in perpetuity, or that every future mission will be the same? Do you know that back here for several months elements of the fighter force have been away from home doing a real mission? (PS, and its not just tracking Santa).



			
				Harry Potter said:
			
		

> The CF is learning to fight a WAR with someone else's CAS because its own Air Force declined to send fighters.  You don't need F-35 to go to Afghanistan.  Why are you not there now??  If you're not there now, why would we believe that you will go later?  Come on, get your head out of the sand!



Are you aware that it is a mission being conducted under NATO, hence why other nations are contributing where they can. Some take the lead in the dangerous areas, others provide air power, etc. I don't know what else to say, other than maybe you should heed your own advice regarding that last line.


----------



## George Wallace

Gents

This topic was started by someone who has little to no knowledge of the subject.  There is no need to create a bun fight as a result of a kid's expressing himself outside his realm of knowledge.  

Sometimes it is a good precaution to check the profile and previous posts of the author, prior to commenting or entering the debate.  Often the lack of credentials means the end of 'serious' debate.


----------



## Loachman

Harry Potter said:
			
		

> Tac Hel guys want to be there.



Slightly off topic, we have been there for a couple of years. Unfortunately, that presence is related to TUAV rather than actually flying. The 1 Wg Op O for the first CH146 deployment, however, was signed five days ago.



			
				Harry Potter said:
			
		

> The CF is learning to fight a WAR with someone else's CAS because its own Air Force declined to send fighters.



So much bovine excrement in so few words...

There is no shortage of CAS capability in theatre.

The decision to send/not send anything, as has been pointed out, is a government rather than CF or CAS decision.



			
				Harry Potter said:
			
		

> You don't need F-35 to go to Afghanistan.  Why are you not there now??  If you're not there now, why would we believe that you will go later?



CF18 replacement has nothing to do with current ops whatsoever. It has everything to do with the next three decades or so.

If you have the ability to see that far ahead then you are being grossly undervalued, both of which I doubt.

I think that you have some deep issues which deserve exploration. Did you unsuccessfully attempt Portage at some point in the past?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I can't believe I actually lowered myself to defend fighter pukes...


----------



## Loachman

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I can't believe I actually lowered myself to defend fighter pukes...



Ditto. I've felt so ... dirty ... since I typed that last post of mine.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

> *Lockheed's first STOVL F-35 - a closer look*
> Lockheed Martin has rolled out the first supersonic STOVL F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. Think about those words - "supersonic" and "STOVL". I worked in future projects at Hawker Siddeley in the late 1970s, so I have an idea of how hard it is to get those two characteristics together in one aircraft. Most of the designs I worked on used Harrier-style vectored thrust, which put a big fat engine right in the middle of the airframe - not exactly what you want for supersonic fineness. Remember Boeing's X-32?
> 
> But the F-35B looks quite sleek. The secret is its shaft-driven lift fan, installed behind the cockpit under a massive rear-hinged door that engineers have dubbed "the 56 Chevy hood". The lift system allows the engine to produce about 40,000lb of vertical thrust without needing reheat. About half that comes from the lift fan and the rest from the roll posts and rear swivelling nozzle. The system worked extremely well on Lockheed's X-32B concept demonstrator.



More and two pics on the link (1/2 below): http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/graham-warwick/2007/12/lockheeds-first-stovl-f35-a-cl.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

Harry Potter: Decisions on fighter deployment are very political.  One who knows has said the Hornets will be sent to Afstan "when they can build schools."  Aerial kinetics that kill civilians are not in political favour in Canada, even though we are happy to have others do them to support us.  Doing it ourselves would be another thing in this rather hypocritical country.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## belka

That F-35B looks really purdy. I don't think that we will get the STOVL version if we do indeed decide to purchase the F-35.


----------



## evil drunken-fool

The only way we are getting the STOVL version, is if we have a STOVL carrier.

Personally I think a STOVL carrier in the 30,000 ton range with a squadron of F-35s and associated support aircraft could be feasible.
It would not require a crazy amount of personnel as some have insisted that a carrier would require.
Lots of other countries with similar military expenditures (Spain) that have STOVL carriers.
It at least should be something that is looked into.

Certainly this is to early in the ballgame to say a flat out "No" to it right now.


----------



## aesop081

Steel Horse said:
			
		

> The only way we are getting the STOVL version, is if we have a STOVL carrier.



I have no idea what makes you think that. A carrier is not required in order to operate STOVL aircraft. The Harrier after all did not start life as a naval aircraft.



> It would not require a crazy amount of personnel as some have insisted that a carrier would require.



We are already very short naval and air personel so, even though on single carrier, would not require that many people, we dont have enough to man the ships we have now, nevermind adding a major warship.

Then we have to make sure we have enough escort ships.

And of course, a single carrier is not available all the time so you need at least 2 ( 3 is better) so that you always have one available for operations......

Really starts to add up


----------



## evil drunken-fool

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I have no idea what makes you think that. A carrier is not required in order to operate STOVL aircraft. The Harrier after all did not start life as a naval aircraft.



It is more of an assumption based on the fact the government in all their wisdom will almost ulitimately go for the less expensive F-35A version for land based operations.  But you are right in what you say, I just personally don't think Canada will buy any STOVL unless we have a STOVL carrier.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> We are already very short naval and air personel so, even though on single carrier, would not require that many people, we dont have enough to man the ships we have now, nevermind adding a major warship.
> 
> Then we have to make sure we have enough escort ships.
> 
> And of course, a single carrier is not available all the time so you need at least 2 ( 3 is better) so that you always have one available for operations......
> 
> Really starts to add up



I do not disagree with you here. Like I said, it is something that should be looked into. I am assuming this is 10 years down the road at least. The Navy might be very different then it is now.


----------



## aesop081

Steel Horse said:
			
		

> I am assuming this is 10 years down the road at least. The Navy might be very different then it is now.



In 10 years the Navy will face alot of challenges and i dont know if the idea of a CV will survive any of that.


1- The Halifax class FFH will be close to the grave. At the very least they will require major ( read : expensive) work .......$$$
2- The DDH replacement should be starting.......$$$
3- The SSKs will be toast and we will need new ones.....$$$
4- We dont have an AOR replacement yet so IMHO, 10 years from now is when we will see them.....$$$
5- MCDV / Orca will need refit......$$$

Your right.....10 years from now will be interesting indeed

But, this not being a Navy thread, lets move back to track


----------



## evil drunken-fool

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> But, this not being a Navy thread, lets move back to track



Agree.


----------



## navy-nesop

How long can we keep flying our current F-18  safely....?

It seems to me that whenever Canada is trying to choose a piece of equipment, we are always stuck with the choice of multiple role platforms.  We have such a small budget for the the amount of roles and territory that we have to cover.

On top of all of these factors there is the political side of things.  Most of the time a project will overlap 2 political mandates or more.  Since the numbers are enormous, it's influence the average people to vote on one side or the other depending on their views.  So it becomes a strategy to cut, reduce or delay any procurement.

The result is that we now need new fighters, helicopters, AOR, destroyers.  We are half way on the life of the CPF and I don't know anything for the army but I am sure they need some things too, probably tanks!

So what is the best multi role aircraft out there?  Can we built one in Canada?


----------



## tomahawk6

First intercept of the F-22 of a Russian bomber.


----------



## aesop081

Those silly Russians refusing to go away, dont they know the cold war is over ?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Is that real???  I thought the F22 wasn't in service "officially" for a few more years.


----------



## midget-boyd91

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Is that real???  I thought the F22 wasn't in service "officially" for a few more years.



Nope, the F-22 was deployed to Japan about a year ago.. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123040309



> 2/8/2007 - HICKAM AIR FORCE BASE, Hawaii (AFNEWS) -- The first overseas operational deployment of the Air Force's newest fighter is underway as 12 F-22 Raptors landed here Feb. 7 en route to Kadena Air Base, Japan.
> 
> The aircraft and more than 250 Airmen from the 27th Fighter Squadron from Langley AFB, Va., are supporting the U.S. Pacific Command's Theater Security Package in the Western Pacific.
> 
> Thirteenth Air Force is responsible for F-22 operations while they are in theater. Lt. Gen. Loyd S. Utterback, the 13th Air Force commander, stressed that the deployment is not in response to any specific situation in the region.
> 
> "The United States routinely evaluates its readiness and repositions forces throughout the Western Pacific to meet its security obligations. The F-22 deployment is the latest example of the flexibility that U.S. forces have to meet ongoing commitments within the region," he said.



Midget


----------



## tomahawk6

There is an F-22 squadron, the 90th in Elmendorf.They will have their full compliment of 20 aircraft by the fall of this year. A few pic's at Elmendorf's web site.

http://www.elmendorf.af.mil/photos/


----------



## midget-boyd91

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Those silly Russians refusing to go away, dont they know the cold war is over ?



It's always cold in Alaska (I'm guessing that would be where the aircraft in the picture is from), but come to think of it.. minus seventeen degrees here right now. Maybe I'll stroll down to Halifax harbor and check for some red submarines. 
Sigh.. when will these double-doubles wear off and let me sleep?  :boring:


Midget


----------



## tomahawk6

The tail has the USAF marking of AK - Alaska.


----------



## midget-boyd91

You've got to hand this to those Russians though... those Bears really do look great in photos like that. We've got a picture lying around here somewhere of of my uncle (a different Uncle Boyd) in a CF-101 intercepting a Bear when he was with 416.

Midget


----------



## tomahawk6

He may have intercepted that same aircraft.


----------



## CougarKing

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Those silly Russians refusing to go away, dont they know the cold war is over ?



Didn't I say that once myself in this other thread about Blackjack bombers over the Bay of Biscay?  

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70021.0.html#new


----------



## observor 69

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> First intercept of the F-22 of a Russian bomber.



And who got the most intel out of this exercise ?


----------



## aesop081

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> And who got the most intel out of this exercise ?



I'm willing to bet that the Russians didnt get much out of it


----------



## tomahawk6

The F-15's were grounded during Thanksgiving when this intercept occured. Its not like the F-22 hasnt flown operationally before.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Manufacturing Defect At Root Of F-15 Grounding (text subscriber only, usual copyright caveat) 
_Aviation Week & Space Technology_
01/14/2008, page 28
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2008/01/14/AW_01_14_2008_p28-24589.xml&query=longeron



> *Printed headline: Flawed Eagles*
> 
> One hundred eighty-two of the U.S. Air Force’s F-15A-Ds remain grounded because of unreliable primary structures that service officials recently discovered were poorly manufactured in the 1970s.
> 
> The upper right-side longeron supporting the cockpit of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C failed Nov. 2, causing the fighter to break in half behind the cockpit during a typical combat maneuver in training. The pilot ejected from the cockpit when it was inverted, and he survived with injuries.
> 
> Manufacturing errors that went unnoticed until now set the stage for this crash, and have manifested into major fractures in at least nine other F-15C models and produced defects in F-15A/B/D aircraft. The F-15 was originally manufactured by McDonnell Douglas, which was acquired by Boeing in 1997. McDonnell Douglas built the problematic longerons, and Air Force lawyers are now exploring whether Boeing will be held responsible. The process will be long, however, as records documenting the condition of the F-15s at the time of transfer to the Air Force appear to be lost but, according to the service, could have been destroyed years ago by the contractor. This is apparently a by-product of shifting some records to microfiche and of document transfers during the merger. Air Force officials say it’s typical for those records to be managed by the contractor, not the service.
> 
> This crack (upper right) found on a longeron of an Air National Guard F-15C at Kingsley Field, Ore., is similar to the one that caused the Nov. 2 crash of an F-15C in Missouri. Some F-15Cs act as aggressors, simulating enemy aircraft during air combat exercises.Credit: U.S. AIR FORCE
> 
> The dramatic structural failure prompted Air Combat Command chief, Gen. John Corley, to ground the F-15 fleet almost immediately. The later models, F-15E Strike Eagles optimized for ground attack, were returned to flight. They contain a different longeron—which is the primary structure holding together an aircraft fuselage—than those used for the A-D models.
> 
> In the course of the accident investigation, Air Force officials discovered the failed longeron was never manufactured to design specifications. The portion that broke is an area where it angles to connect the forward and aft sections of the aircraft near the rear of the cockpit canopy.
> 
> Nine other F-15Cs have been found to contain similar fractures in their longeron structures. The Air Force has inspected 90% of its F-15A-D fleet, and checks are ongoing on the remaining aircraft.
> 
> Of those inspected, 182 show manufacturing defects. They include the longeron structure’s being too thin, containing ridges that will not carry stresses properly, or roughness on the surface, which makes the longeron more prone to cracking.
> 
> The Air Force has not decided whether to repair these aircraft or retire them ahead of schedule. Maj. Gen. Thomas Owen, commander of the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Ga., which oversees F-15 maintenance, says new longerons cost about $10,000 per unit. However, each one will require about $250,000 to install, a large bill for the already cash-strapped Air Force. This also calls into question an earlier plan to upgrade 177 of the most pristine “Golden Eagles” and keep them in service up to two decades beyond current projections.
> 
> “All options are on the table” to handle the gap. Yet, the Air Force is clearly leaning in the direction of buying more stealthy Lockheed Martin F-22s; 183 are expected, though the service says it required 381 Raptors prior to this recent F-15 problem. Uniformed Air Force officials are pushing hard to convince senior Pentagon civilians to extend the F-22 buy until the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—an A-10 and F-16 replacement—is in full production.
> 
> Boeing is building F-15s for allies and could sell them to USAF. In 2006, Boeing offered to sell 150 F-15E variants with new active, electronically scanned array radars to the Air Force for $60 million apiece. They would be optimized for ground attack, although they could support the air sovereignty mission in the U.S.
> 
> Corley says his ability to ensure air sovereignty in the U.S. has been limited; F-15s are a primary component of the North American Aerospace Defense Command’s interceptor fleet.
> 
> F-22s and F-16s are supporting Norad’s mission, but the F-15 grounding has interrupted the pipeline for pilot training in all three fleets.
> 
> Last fall, the Navy moved the USS Enterprise from the Persian Gulf to the northern Arabian Sea to pick up the slack left by grounded F-15s in air support to forces in Afghanistan.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bo

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Those silly Russians refusing to go away, dont they know the cold war is over ?



As impressive as that photo is, isn't it true that the Russians file flight plans before they cross into North American airspace? Kinda takes the lead out of the pencil if you know what I mean.


----------



## George Wallace

Bo said:
			
		

> As impressive as that photo is, isn't it true that the Russians file flight plans before they cross into North American airspace? Kinda takes the lead out of the pencil if you know what I mean.



That's an interesting "tidbit".  With whom do they file those flight plans?


----------



## rz350

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm willing to bet that the Russians didnt get much out of it



Wouldnt a maritime patrol, recce or EW variant of the ol bear get some intel on the raptor from that? ESP about its Radar Emissions? (So they can update their TEWS to recognize the signature of a Raptor)

Yes, I am well aware that the Raptor wouldnt turn its radar on too often as it would give away its stealth. But if it wanted to intercept or fire and RGM's, it would have to it.


----------



## vonGarvin

Argh to the Zee said:
			
		

> Wouldnt a maritime patrol, recce or EW variant of the ol bear get some intel on the raptor from that? ESP about its Radar Emissions? (So they can update their TEWS to recognize the signature of a Raptor)
> 
> Yes, I am well aware that the Raptor wouldnt turn its radar on too often as it would give away its stealth. *But if it wanted to intercept or fire and RGM's, it would have to it.*


Unless it were "painted" by a third party


----------



## aesop081

Argh to the Zee said:
			
		

> Wouldnt a maritime patrol, recce or EW variant of the ol bear get some intel on the raptor from that? ESP about its Radar Emissions? (So they can update their TEWS to recognize the signature of a Raptor)
> 
> Yes, I am well aware that the Raptor wouldnt turn its radar on too often as it would give away its stealth. But if it wanted to intercept or fire and RGM's, it would have to it.



I will say that you are out of your lane here........thats all.


----------



## Bo

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That's an interesting "tidbit".  With whom do they file those flight plans?






> Pentagon officials said USAF aircraft intercepted and escorted some of the Russian bombers over international waters in the vicinity of Alaska. NATO partners also ran intercepts. British Typhoon fighters over the North Sea escorted a 1960s-era Bear bomber, and Norwegian fighters photographed A-50 Mainstay AWACS aircraft and two MiG-31 interceptors being refueled by a Russian tanker in the vicinity of the North Pole.
> 
> A Pentagon spokeswoman confirmed that the strategic flights continued in the weeks following the announcement, at a rate of every day or two. This is a substantially higher operating tempo than in the previous years, when such flights were mounted only every few months.
> 
> She said that the flights were not provocative; unlike in Cold War years, the bombers made no dash toward US airspace, only to turn away at the last minute. *Russian aviation authorities had been “completely transparent” about the activity, filing flight plans and issuing notices about where the airplanes would be going and when.*
> 
> “There have been no incursions” into US airspace, she said.





http://www.afa.org/magazine/oct2007/1007watch.asp


----------



## rz350

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I will say that you are out of your lane here........thats all.



Quite true. I was just throwing it out there, to see if perhaps my inking of aerial warfare was at all correct.

But yes, there are ways around that problem, and thinking about it again, they are probably employed.


----------



## aesop081

For reference, the Russians usualy stay in international airspace but inside the ADIZ, so thats why they get intercepted.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Will anyone be able to afford the F-35?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031102796.html



> The cost of Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter, already the most expensive weapons program ever, is projected to increase as much as $38 billion, congressional auditors said yesterday.
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf
> 
> That would bring the price of 2,458 F-35s to $337 billion, 45 percent more than estimated when the program began in October 2001 [*that's about 140 million each!*].
> 
> "Midway through development, the program is over cost and behind schedule," Michael J. Sullivan, director of acquisition and sourcing management for the Government Accountability Office, told two panels of the House Armed Services Committee that oversee military spending.
> 
> The 12-year development of the fighter jet is entering its most challenging phase, including test flights, completing the software, finishing design of the three F-35 models and refining manufacturing processes at Lockheed and its subcontractors.
> 
> Sullivan said the Pentagon has identified billions of dollars in unfunded requirements, continued delays and "substantial" production inefficiency by Lockheed and engine-maker Pratt &amp; Whitney that will increase costs.
> 
> At $337 billion, the Joint Strike Fighter's price would be more than twice that of the Pentagon's second-most expensive weapons program, the $160 billion Future Combat System...



Then there's this:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163800,00.html?wh=wh



> The cost of buying and operating a new fleet of jet fighters for the U.S. military is nearing $1 trillion, according to a congressional audit that found the program dogged by delays, manufacturing inefficiencies and price increases...



Aussies worried:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23365937-31477,00.html?from=public_rss



> THE RAAF could be forced to drastically rethink the timetable and strategy for acquiring up to 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in the wake of a US government report, which points to lengthy development delays and cost blowouts in the multi-billion-dollar project.
> 
> A US General Accounting Office report released yesterday found that the official program cost of the F-35 could be understated by up to $US38 billion ($41billion) and that the development schedule is likely to slip from 12 to 27 months...
> 
> The RAAF planned to receive its first Joint Strike Fighters from 2013-14, with the first squadron operational from 2015-16.
> 
> But the GAO report throws further doubt on the RAAF's timetable and highlights the potential capability gap in Australia's air-combat force beyond the retirement of the F-111s.
> 
> The F-35s are planned to replace the F-111s, due to retire from 2010, and are destined to become Australia's frontline combat aircraft.
> 
> The possibility of a serious delay throws the spotlight on the controversial $6.5 billion F-18 Super Hornet purchase decided by the Howard government last year. Some analysts say the Super Hornets could form the mainstay of the RAAF's combat force at least until 2017.
> 
> Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon is focusing on Australia's future air-combat needs and yesterday expressed concern about the status of the Joint Strike Fighter project.
> 
> "Nobody really knows what on-time is. It was 2013 originally. Now its 2015," he told The Australian.
> 
> "*After today's report, nobody really knows the answer to that question. It could be 2020 for all I know* [emphasis added]."
> 
> The Rudd Government is expected to make a final decision to buy the fifth-generation fighter next year, having already invested $300 million in the development of the F-35.
> 
> The purchase of up to 100 F-35 aircraft at an estimated cost of $16 billion would be Australia's largest defence purchase.
> 
> The RAAF has estimated the fly-away cost of each plane at about $80 million, but this figure could climb substantially before production aircraft are delivered...



Earlier, Aussie Chief of the Defence Force virtually took on his defence minister:

Australian defense chief says military '100 percent' behind Boeing's Super Hornet jets
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/20/asia/AS-GEN-Australia-Jet-Fighters.php

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## time expired

Interesting photo,F22 filling in for F15 but I have a question
for the experts out there,whats with the underwing tanks?.
Surely the thing that makes the F22 so effective and ultra
expensive is the stealth technology and would not these huge
tanks degrade this technology or is the F22 endurance
challenged?.
                     Regards


----------



## stegner

By no means am I an expert.  The fuel tanks do indeed degrade the stealth of the F-22, but I reckon that even with those tanks that the F-22 would be harder to spot on radar than most planes.  In an intercept mission stealth may not be overly critical and thus the fuel tanks can be carried.   This plane was just waving a friendly hello to Boris/Natasha, which did not require super ninja stealth capabilities.  I don't think the F-22 is endurance challenged compared with other jets- it has super-cruise, which is more economical than afterburners.  Let's see what the Air Force folks have to say on this.  By the way, is this a bad time to ask their opinion on whether they presently prefer (F-22 or F-35) given recent indications of cost overruns of the JSF.  My 2 cents: if the JSF is going to be so expensive Canada should at least get a two engined fighter if the Americans ever decide to sell the F-22.   Given that we are in NORAD, I think Canada has a better case than the other allies like Japan of obtaining the jet.  After all Canada is helping defend the United States.


----------



## Ecco

time expired said:
			
		

> Interesting photo,F22 filling in for F15 but I have a question
> for the experts out there,whats with the underwing tanks?.



I'm not saying that it is what they are doing, but it sounds like a good idea to attach Radar reflective tanks under the F-22, in this instance.

The exact stealth capabilities of the airplane would be kept secret.
If the mission was to show off the new F-22 to the Russians, one can assume that all Russki radars pointed in that direction will review their tapes and try to figure out the radar cross-section of the F-22.  If the F-22 is carrying huge radar reflectors under its wings, the analysis of the radar signals will give you a lot of information on the radar cross-section of the tanks, but not much about the airplane itself.  The secret is preserved.


----------



## time expired

I feel the whole stealth question should be given an complete
rethink.does this technology give a fighter such an advantage,
particularly on day missions,to justify the huge costs and loss
of agility that stealth bring with it.RAF pilots on exercise in
Alaska reportedly were able to locate the F22 as soon as it
turned on its radar and take effective counter measures.What
these counter measure were, was not reported,however when
the F22 closed the RAF pilots were easily able to out maneaver
the US jets with their Typhoons and score kills.It was also noted
that some F22s were spotted before the radar was turned on
by contrails and that the F22 was force to slow down to open
its weapon bay doors.This was not an official report and was not
verified by the RAF or the USAF,still food for thought.
                                    Regards


----------



## Astrodog

time expired said:
			
		

> I feel the whole stealth question should be given an complete
> rethink.does this technology give a fighter such an advantage,
> particularly on day missions,to justify the huge costs and loss
> of agility that stealth bring with it.RAF pilots on exercise in
> Alaska reportedly were able to locate the F22 as soon as it
> turned on its radar and take effective counter measures.What
> these counter measure were, was not reported,however when
> the F22 closed the RAF pilots were easily able to out maneaver
> the US jets with their Typhoons and score kills.It was also noted
> that some F22s were spotted before the radar was turned on
> by contrails and that the F22 was force to slow down to open
> its weapon bay doors.This was not an official report and was not
> verified by the RAF or the USAF,still food for thought.
> Regards



  Where did you read this? If online, link? I've heard alot of heresay about the F-22 not being all it's made out to be, but never read anything official/concrete/verified by anybody. Regardless of whether it makes you entirely invisible or not, stealth seems to be quite the asset to have even if only for first strike missions.


----------



## jim303

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Current US policy is that it will not export the F-22
> 
> I guess that part of your debate is closed for now.
> 
> 
> Braveheart......
> 
> Read this first :
> 
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/44917.0.html



The RAAF is talking about buying the F-22 over the F-35, and the US and USAF in particular are supporting the idea so far.
Time will tell, but I believe there are a lot of people in the US who would love sharing the cost burdens with another country.

Cheers.


----------



## belka

Doesn't really matter for Canada if the Raptor is allowed to be exported. It's not like we need (afford) those things anyways, let alone the current fighters.


----------



## medaid

What are talking about Ninja? What are we supposed to defend our airspace with? Vipers?


----------



## belka

Besides the odd bear intercept, or should I say picture opt, the fighters are nothing more than an expensive flying club, imo. There is no way they'll be sent to Afganistan in the current state that their in, not to mention that would cost a hell of a lot of money. The Hawks would go before the hornets.


----------



## medaid

Ninja... Remember those days when peope kept saying " t
The Armoured Corps is dead. There'll never be a day where heavy amour will be needed. Let's retire the Leos" Ooo I remember, guedd what happened next?


----------



## belka

Well, then lets hope these fighters are soon used for what they are designed to....and I don't mean joy flights to visit girlfriends.


----------



## CougarKing

NINJA said:
			
		

> ....and I don't mean joy flights to visit girlfriends.



Awww man, you're no fun.  ;D


----------



## medaid

: yes... Because that is ALL they EVER do!!


----------



## jzaidi1

My two cents,

Canada needs the CF-18 and next-gen fighters for several reasons.

1. We have a large territory to cover - speed is essential.
2. Our enemies (and most Allies) want our natural resources (metals, oil, food, water, lumber) - we need defence mechanisms in place.
3. China, Japan, India and Iran are new players in the fighter jet business, all claiming to be developing their own 4th or 5th gen fighters.
4. We are claiming *some* of the Artic as our own - Russia doesn't like it and will continually contest this by sending in Subs, Bears and escort fighters with 4th & soon to be 5th Gen capabilities.
5. We need to exert our own sovereignty in the air, land, sea and now space (different story all together).

Those are some of the reasons.  The cost of not defending ourselves outweighs the cost of 100 or even 1000 new fighter jets.  The value of our untapped natural resources alone are in the mult-trillions of dollars.  We have 75% of the fresh water in the world, more than 20% of the oil, 15-18% of the wood, 7-10% of the world's crop yeild and loads of land.  It would be wise to allocate a good percentage to defence of these resources, land and people.  What if 10-15 years from now China or India decided they want our resources - our first line of physical defence and deterrence would be our fighter aircraft - they need to be state-of-the-art and a force to be reckoned with.

CPL Jay


----------



## MarkOttawa

Flimflammery update from _AW&ST_, April 14 (text subscriber only):
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/AvnowSearchResult.do?reference=xml/awst_xml/2008/04/14/AW_04_14_2008_p39-43909.xml&query=%22the+pentagon+says+its+estimate%22



> ...Selected Acquisition Reports (SAR) are prepared annually in conjunction with the President’s budget and are formulated by mixing actual spending to date, estimated future costs and anticipated inflation.
> 
> Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program is drawing attention because the triservice Joint Strike Fighter was reported with a cost decrease of $981 million, bringing its new total to $298.8 billion. Underlying the relatively small change, however, is a 15% increase in the systems development and demonstration (SDD) cost...
> 
> ...Right now, the *average, estimated cost of all models at the midpoint of the 2,443-aircraft program is at $69.3 million per unit in 2002 dollars, up from the initial estimate of $50.2 million* [emphasis added]...
> 
> But Davis [program executive officer, Maj. Gen. C.R. Davis] contends that by itself, *Israel’s purchase of 25 F-35s* [emphasis added] in 2011-12 will reduce the cost of the F-35 to the U.S. services by $500 million.
> 
> *Among undeclared purchasers of the F-35 is likely to be Japan* [emphasis added]. A 30-person group has just visited Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth facility.
> 
> “We addressed both technical and financial aspects of the program,” says Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program general manager. “They expressed very positive comments about capabilities.”
> 
> “We’ve had [USAF] folks briefing the Japanese in-country, and the Japanese have clearly stated again that their requirement is for a fifth-generation airplane,” says Davis. “And everybody understands where the (unexportable)] F-22 is in that discussion.”..
> 
> On the positive side, the JSF team has taken actions to reduce procurement nonrecurring cost overall, and has been able to claw back some of the prior-year projected increases in recurring costs that were caused by labor rate changes, escalation and material costs. Such projections should *reassure non-U.S. customers that the price they pay will be close to the numbers around which they have planned their budgets* [emphasis added]...
> 
> ...acquisition officials say the potential for flimflammery is greatest in estimates projected over decades where savings can be calculated with very little supporting evidence. The cost savings in the SAR involve projections to the end of production, about 2035, for the U.S. program of record, but the SDD increases will be effective until mid-2013...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

LM looking really hard for foreign money (no mention of Canada):
http://www.star-telegram.com/business/story/621516.html



> Lockheed Martin officials are working out a plan to get key allies to place firm, early orders for hundreds of F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighters.
> 
> Much work remains to be done, but Lockheed hopes to submit a detailed proposal outlining cost, order and delivery schedules to government and military officials by early next year.
> 
> The plans calls for a consortium of the eight countries that have invested in development of the F-35 to commit to buy 368 fighter jets, with production beginning as soon as 2012-2013.
> 
> *U.S. taxpayers and military services would be major beneficiaries of the consortium proposal. The sooner foreign countries place orders for F-35s and production begins to increase, the faster the cost of the aircraft should come down* [emphasis added].
> 
> "The importance is stability," said Dan Crowley, the Lockheed executive vice president who oversees F-35 development and production in Fort Worth. "Stability of production, stability of cost."
> 
> Lockheed and the Pentagon have been working since mid-2007 to encourage the eight partner countries to place early orders.
> 
> Without foreign orders, the U.S. military would have to bear the brunt of the high early costs of buying tools, training workers and working out the kinks in the production lines.
> 
> Pentagon budget documents show that the *Air Force anticipates ordering 42 F-35s in 2013 at an average price of about $91 million, the lowest cost of the three versions. Navy and Marine Corps planes would cost much more. Early foreign orders could bring those costs down significantly* [emphasis added].
> 
> At the same time, Lockheed hopes the plan will help persuade the Pentagon to step up its planned F-35 purchases as the armed services seek to replace older, costly-to-maintain fighter jets now being heavily used in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other missions.
> 
> Tom Burbage, Lockheed's executive vice president who oversees the political and marketing aspects of the F-35, briefed officials of the partner countries at a conference last month. He will present the concept to senior government and military officials this month.
> 
> If they approve, Burbage said Lockheed and the other contractors will begin extensive discussions with suppliers to try and project cost and production schedules so that firm pricing commitments could be made to the partner countries.
> 
> "Nobody has bought into it yet," said Burbage, adding that Lockheed would have to invest a great deal of time and effort to pull together accurate cost data.
> 
> Unlike the U.S., which funds weapons-system purchases on a year-to-year basis, most of the F-35 partner countries will make multiyear buying decisions and appropriate the money upfront. Much like Boeing does with commercial airline buyers, Lockheed and the U.S. will have to commit to selling F-35s at firm, fixed prices for the life of a contract.
> 
> Burbage said that under such an arrangement, Lockheed and the other prime contractors, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman, will take on some financial risk, as will the U.S. and foreign governments.
> 
> Great Britain and the Netherlands are expected to buy three test airplanes between them, along with 16 for the U.S. government in the 2009 fiscal year.
> 
> So far, the U.S. and Lockheed have been able to keep the partner countries on the F-35 team despite the best efforts of European fighter-jet manufacturers.
> 
> "They've kept all eight partner nations in, they've kept them funding it, which is a major accomplishment," said Richard Aboulafia, aerospace-industry analyst with the Teal Group.
> 
> Burbage just returned from a 10-day trip to Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands to meet with government and military leaders. Norway and Denmark have not yet committed to buy the F-35 and are holding competitions, mainly with Sweden's Saab Gripen fighter.
> 
> Burbage submitted Lockheed's formal bid to Norwegian officials Monday. In his remarks, Burbage told Norwegian officials that the F-35 represents a "quantum leap" in combat capabilities at 20 percent lower operational cost than the F-16s and other aircraft they are now flying.
> 
> "We made a strong proposal," Burbage said. "We're competitive on price, and we're a much more capable airplane."
> 
> Norway is expected to decide which fighter to purchase by year's end, but Burbage said a formal decision to order planes is probably several years away.
> 
> Other countries are also considering how soon to commit to F-35 orders. Italy, Burbage said, might decide to buy its own test airplane in 2009. Australian government officials have hedged at times about their commitment and have announced plans to order 24 Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets.
> 
> But Burbage said all indications are that Australia will reaffirm its intent to purchase F-35s at some point.
> 
> Israel, meanwhile, has adopted military budget plans that call for buying 25 F-35s around 2012.
> 
> As Lockheed and the U.S. seek to firm up foreign support for the F-35, one selling point has been that partner countries, which won F-35 work by upgrading their technology and manufacturing capabilities, are beginning to win additional work from the commercial aircraft industry.
> 
> "All of the benefits [from other countries' investments] have gone into their local, high-tech industries," Burbage said, something political leaders are beginning to notice.



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Spencer100

More info from the Aries Blog of Aviation Week.
and Bloomberg.


Bloomberg is reporting that Canada has trimmed its requirement for new fighters to 65 aircraft from 80 - presumed to be F-35s because of the country's involvement in the JSF development program. The new number, still unconfirmed, is attributed to defense minister Peter Mackay, speaking at a press conference in Halifax on May 12 after Prime Minister Stephen Harper had unveiled the government's new Canada First defense strategy.

Harper's announcement contained little in the way of new detail about the strategy, which is built around a long-term funding plan calling for an automatic annual increase in defence spending from the current 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, beginning in 2011-12. This is expected to provide the Canadian Forces with an additional C$12 billion over the next 20 years, on top of the extra C$5.3 billion over five years provided by the Conservatives since they took power in 2006.

The money will go on readiness, recruitment and re-equipment - most of the major acquisitions having already been announced, including four C-17 strategic airlifters, 17 C-130J tactical transports, and 16 CH-47 heavylift helicopters, plus new tanks, trucks and ships. Under Canada First, according to the Harper announcement, Ottawa will proceed with the replacement of "surface combat ships, maritime patrol craft, fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, fighter aircraft, and land combat vehicles and systems".

This suggests long-overdue successors to the CC-115 Buffalo SAR and CP-140 Aurora MPA fleets will finally be funded. But the number of "CF-35s", if confirmed, will represent a substantial contraction of Canada's fighter force, now comprising just under 100 1980s-vintage CF-18s.


----------



## PO2FinClk

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Bloomberg is reporting that Canada has trimmed its requirement for new fighters to 65 aircraft from 80 - presumed to be F-35s because of the country's involvement in the JSF development program. The new number, still unconfirmed, is attributed to defense minister Peter Mackay, speaking at a press conference in Halifax on May 12 after Prime Minister Stephen Harper had unveiled the government's new Canada First defense strategy.


Also stated by Reuters in this post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/76329/post-712271.html#msg712271


> OTTAWA, May 12 (Reuters) - The Canadian government said on Monday it would buy 65 new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, a figure lower than the 80 planes that had widely circulated in the media.
> 
> *"One of the reasons there will be fewer of the new fighters is we anticipate the new fighters will have significantly greater capacity than existing fighters," Prime Minister Stephen Harper told a news conference.*
> 
> He was speaking in Nova Scotia as he unveiled what he called the Canada First Defence Strategy, involving C$30 billion ($30 billion) in projected new military spending for the next 20 years.
> 
> The F-35s will replace Canada's CF-18s, which are scheduled to reach the end of their working lives in 2017-20. Canada bought 138 of them in the 1980s and now has 98, 80 of which are being refurbished.
> 
> Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) will make the F-35s. The Joint Strike Fighter program is being funded by the United States, Canada and seven other countries.


----------



## jzaidi1

I'm still trying trying to wrap my head around the reduced numbers of new fighters.  I'm still trying to figure out what is so great about the F-35 vs CF-18 other than avionics and better stealth.  The F-35 is single engine with same performance as CF-18, is it not?  So if an engine conks out over the Artic then that's it?!  So we have to defend the 2nd largest country in the world with less aircraft in an increasingly inhospitable world with a dire thirst for our water, oil, lumber, land and minerals?

We truly do have geniuses working in Parliament!

J


----------



## stegner

I think I heard that only 35% of the CF-18 is ready to be flown at any given time do to the age and need for more tender loving care.   So if only about 35 fighters are availiable at the present moment that is still fairly decent.   However,  I think about 20 years after the new planes enter into service will have run out of planes due to attrition.  65 planes only makes sense only if they plan to buy later versions of the planes.  Howabout buy 65 of the F-35C with options for 5  newer vesions of F-35 C Block II a year for seven years 5 years after the last delivery date of the F-35A than do 2 a year for the next ten years or until the plane is retired so we don't have to spend money upgrading the F-35C to F-35C Block II standards.  The initial F-35C's could be used for training and for things like snowbirds, recce, EW and even a fighter reserve unit.    I think the west has become very complacent and is not fully realizing that Russia, China and India are developing some very advanced planes.  Those planes will be eventually exported and in greater numbers than 65.   I think Robert Gates declaration that the USA doesn't need as many F-22's as the USAF claims as that platform has not down a single thing in Iraq is demonstrative of a very limited frame of thinking and is similar to decision makers in the USA prior to the Second World War.   The Zero fighter became a startling and lethal surprise to those that had to combat it.   I think it is pretty bad when you are ordering less fighter jets than Pierre Trudeau!


----------



## jzaidi1

I agree with some of your points.  As far as I know the CF-18 are 70% operational at any given time.  An initial batch of 65 F-35s phased in with the CF-18 running air support would be a good combo, as long as the gov't purchase upgraded airframes later on.  Assuming one F-35 can aggressively cover/defend a radius of roughly 250km we would need in excess of 500 fighters to cover Canada from all directions (this includes 200km past shoreline).  As most of you know, all fighters need to pair up so you'd have two fighters defending 250km radius.  The radius would have to overlap with other fighters as well to ensure solid coverage.

**250km radius is an arbitrary number based on my knowledge fuel consumption, round trip flights with some dogfighting and super sonic travel thrown in.  Please correct me if I am off-base.

J


----------



## Harry Potter

Did I miss the Government announcement that it was single sourcing the procurement of our next fighter aircraft to Lockheed Martin's F-35, or are we picking up on a journalist uneducated statement and turning it into a fact?


----------



## aesop081

Harry Potter said:
			
		

> Did I miss the Government announcement that it was single sourcing the procurement of our next fighter aircraft to Lockheed Martin's F-35, or are we picking up on a journalist uneducated statement and turning it into a fact?



It is widely expected that the JSF will be what is procured BUT no official decision has ever been made on it. Thus far, Canada has only provided money to the project developement in order to secure a place for Canadian industry in its manufacture.


----------



## Harry Potter

Ack.  Thanks.  I didn't think so.


----------



## stegner

> Did I miss the Government announcement that it was single sourcing the procurement of our next fighter aircraft to Lockheed Martin's F-35, or are we picking up on a journalist uneducated statement and turning it into a fact?



Given that Canada has only bought American fighters since the 1960's and that that there will only be two 5th generation American fighters constructed F-22 and F-35-with only one available for export (F-35) I was assuming that the CF would buy the F-35C.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was looking elsewhere and found that the Superhornet was costing the Aussies around 58 million each for the standard version. I have to wonder if a mixed fleet is not an acceptable compromise, the Superbug offers a electronic warfare version which would be a highly useful thing to have and far better to risk a 58 million dollar aircraft rather than a 110million one on a gun run. In fact in light of the cost of these fighters, are we going to see the end of close in strafing by fighter-bombers? The loss of even one these aircraft to enemy fire would be a significant blow.


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> The loss of even one these aircraft to enemy fire would be a significant blow.



In 1939 Dollars, what would the cost of the loss of a Typhon have been to the war effort?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In 1939 Dollars, what would the cost of the loss of a Typhon have been to the war effort?



Considering we had factories cranking them out almost every day and a extensive pilot training plan that pumped out pilots at an astonishing rate. I would say that our inability to replace the aircraft in any reasonable timeframe is significant. Not to mention that if it was lost to a manpad used by 'advisers" to somesort of insurgent group, it would certainly be a victory both tactically and politically for them.

With so few highly expensive aircraft is the cost/benifit ratio worth the risk of a strafing run?


----------



## aesop081

Colin P said:
			
		

> I was looking elsewhere and found that the Superhornet was costing the Aussies around 58 million each for the standard version.



And that RAAF procurement of the super hornet is only an interim measure to hold them over until the arrival in service of JSF.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> And that RAAF procurement of the super hornet is only an interim measure to hold them over until the arrival in service of JSF.



Just like the Stykers are "Interim" fix till the new vehicles come out, judging by the issues effecting the aircraft manufacturers, I suspect that buy some interim assets is a good idea.

What do you think of the electronic warfare version and would it be a useful capability (regardless of airframe) for us?


----------



## aesop081

Colin P said:
			
		

> Just like the Stykers are "Interim" fix till the new vehicles come out, judging by the issues effecting the aircraft manufacturers, I suspect that buy some interim assets is a good idea.



Yes it does turn out to be like that sometimes but "interim" usualy means that its not entirely what you need in the first place. When you are stuck with "interim" for a long time, you are accepting a capability gap. The RAAF procured the Super Hornet in order to avoid a larger capability gap between the F-111C and the JSF.




> What do you think of the electronic warfare version and would it be a useful capability (regardless of airframe) for us?



Nice aircraft for sure. I will hold my judgement until i see reports on how well the EW system functions. After the B-1B EW suite fiasco and the long series of problems with the ASPJ i'm more cautious when it comes to EW systems performing as advertized.

An aircraft like that would be a "nice to have" for us IMHO. Its too much of a one-trick poney for our limited resources.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What would you like to see instead of the JSF then?


----------



## jzaidi1

I'd like to see:
F-22 primary striker with Super Hornet combo
OR
F-22 with SAAB Gripen combo
OR
Typhoon with Super Hornet Combo

If we have to pick ONE aircraft then it would be the F-22.  It's supercruise, stealth and agility are unsurpassed, not to mention it has 2 testicles instead of one (testicles = engines).  It is clearly the most advanced "production" fighter jet in the world - and yes it is multi-role capable.

J


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

But the F22 is not for export.


----------



## aesop081

Fireball said:
			
		

> If we have to pick ONE aircraft then it would be the F-22.  It's supercruise, stealth and agility are unsurpassed, not to mention it has 2 testicles instead of one (testicles = engines).  It is clearly the most advanced "production" fighter jet in the world - and yes it is multi-role capable.



And is not datalink capable......is not JHMCS capable......Beleive it or not but the F-22 has so far failed to deliver in alot of areas.


----------



## Mach

Would the Eurofighter Typhoon be an option?


----------



## aesop081

Mach said:
			
		

> Would the Eurofighter Typhoon be an option?



IMHO.........

Typhoon or Raffale

Both are available now and represent a very cost effective solution to replacing the CF-188.


----------



## karl28

Maybe sense the Government has announced the purchase of 65 JSF maybe we could supplement these aircraft with another 60-40  Typhoon aircraft that way we can maintain an Jetfighter  strength of 100 ?    I just don't see how 65 aircraft even ones as advanced as the JSF can patrol all this airspace  even with just regular maintenance of the aircraft how many of the 65 could we have flying at any one time ?


----------



## aesop081

karl28 said:
			
		

> I just don't see how 65 aircraft even ones as advanced as the JSF can patrol all this airspace



They dont need to.

You dont have to have fighter coverage for every single square feet of airspace 24/7. We have extensive coverage by radar and other sensors of the aproaches to our airspace. Fighters get positioned according to the threat, available intelligence and data provided by early warning systems.

We have thousands of square miles of ocean to monitor and are doing it with 18 CP-140s. We dont patrol every single inch every single day do we ?


----------



## jzaidi1

I personally believe despite some of the setbacks of the F-22 that it should be our premier choice for several reasons:
- High manoueverability
- sustained supersonic flight
- Advanced avionics that can be upgraded
- Stealth capable
- Two testicles (engines)

The Typhoon exhibits similar traits except for stealth, I believe.  The Gripen is a good close air support fighter AND can be dual seat, but only single testicle though.

J


----------



## aesop081

Fireball said:
			
		

> I personally believe despite some of the setbacks of the F-22 that it should be our premier choice for several reasons:
> -



IT IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR EXPORT !!!!!

And FFS start refering to engines as "engines"

 :


----------



## jzaidi1

I know it's not available for export TODAY but it looks like US could open up an export version for Japan and Australia (hence Canada too).  There is a debate in the Senate that's been ongoing for several months.  The initial US order was in the 500+ hundreds which was scaled back to 180 (I believe) causing the cost per aircraft to go way up.  Australia/Japan have the funds available to purchase a few, which could ultimately be beneficial to Lockheed and the US gov't by sustaining a highly skilled line of employees until they start mass production on the JSF.

J


----------



## aesop081

Fireball said:
			
		

> Japan and Australia (*hence Canada too*).



Not necessarily so quit assuming. That there is a debate does not mean it will be exported to anyone anytime soon.



> was scaled back to 180 (I believe) .



183


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> IMHO.........
> 
> Typhoon or Raffale
> 
> Both are available now and represent a very cost effective solution to replacing the CF-188.



How does the loaded range compare with the F-35 & superhornet, I suspect for us this will be a significant issue.


----------



## Bandit1

F-35 would be my first choice of the two mentioned in this thread.  My first choice overall would be the Super Hornet.

Canada doesn't need the F-22 - the biggest reason against it being that we aren't gong to be involved in any situations where we'd be able to use the Raptor for what it is created to do.  Canada will never be the first nation involved in any aerial combat against foes such as India, Russia, China, or any other country you want to mention.

My fleet would involve a mix of 50 Super Hornets and 50 F-35's - a decent mix of aircraft that will allow our pilots to get the job done.

Bandit


----------



## MarkOttawa

Bandit1: According the MND the future fighter buy will be only 65 aircraft:
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1231405420080512

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Bandit1: According the MND the future fighter buy will be only 65 aircraft:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1231405420080512
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Ottawa has been known to change their minds, no reason why they will not do so again....


----------



## MarkOttawa

Ex-Dragoon: How often for more rather than less?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bandit1

65 JSF's + 35 Hornets....I'm willing to bet that we'll keep a squadron of the Hornets around for systems and pilot training as not ALL of them will have reached their best before date...

Besides, if the attrition rate for the JSF will be the same as the Hornet, do you really think we'd only have a full force number of 25?

Bandit


----------



## lynzi

I don't understand why the Canadian Government can't do a complete overhaul and upgrade of the F-18 Hornets. It would cost less than getting JSF F-35's if what I'm hearing is correct: 300 million a pop, it's completely ridiculous. 
Anyways, the F-18's just underwent a systems overhaul a couple years ago, so they should be good for a while yet.


----------



## aesop081

you can do whatever you want to a 1980's jet....its still a 1980's jet !!



			
				lynzi said:
			
		

> if what I'm hearing is correct: 300 million a pop, it's completely ridiculous.



No, its not correct.


----------



## stegner

> Anyways, the F-18's just underwent a systems overhaul a couple years ago, so they should be good for a while yet.



No because the airframes themselves are only good for about another ten years or so (or less for some).   The older they get the more repairs they need and eventually some will be removed from service entirely due to structural fatigue.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

lynzi said:
			
		

> I don't understand why the Canadian Government can't do a complete overhaul and upgrade of the F-18 Hornets. It would cost less than getting JSF F-35's if what I'm hearing is correct: 300 million a pop, it's completely ridiculous.
> Anyways, the F-18's just underwent a systems overhaul a couple years ago, so they should be good for a while yet.



Because the same thing will happen to them that happened to the F-15's


----------



## RAGINCANADIAN

by the way us congress wont allow the sale of the f22 because of the advanced technology used in the stealth materials and avionics... so the sale to any foreigncountry would be illegal on the manufacturers part and any contract to do so void... but the F-35 or the F/A-18 E/F super hornet would be a very good investment providing the dnd/government can decide on the best road to take...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

RAGINCANADIAN said:
			
		

> by the way us congress wont allow the sale of the f22 because of the advanced technology used in the stealth materials and avionics... so the sale to any foreigncountry would be illegal on the manufacturers part and any contract to do so void... but the F-35 or the F/A-18 E/F super hornet would be a very good investment providing the dnd/government can decide on the best road to take...



Have you even looked at the other replies...#142 address the US Congresses approach on the F22.


----------



## RAGINCANADIAN

and yes i did and people were still asking why not F-22... and as for the price of the F-35, depending on model and quantity ordered each unit would cost between 35-50 million not including parts and other contracts through Lockheed-Martin... The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would be a better buy considering it is a brand new airframe and combat proven as well as has 2 engines.... something the airforce has a love affair with... one of the reasons why the F/A-18 A-D variants were chosen over the F-16 in the late '70 early '80s....


----------



## aesop081

Alright....another army guy telling us how it is.

 :


----------



## RAGINCANADIAN

its funny you say that but its so true about what i posted... it must be hard for aviation freaks to think that someone in the army doesnt have an interest in aviation... but i guess some people are too ignorant to be open minded... what a shame eh???


----------



## aesop081

RAGINCANADIAN said:
			
		

> its funny you say that but its so true about what i posted... it must be hard for aviation freaks to think that someone in the army doesnt have an interest in aviation... but i guess some people are too ignorant to be open minded... what a shame eh???



yeah....my 10.1 hours of operational flying today alone feel real bad


----------



## RAGINCANADIAN

what does that have to do with the dnd buying a new multi-role combat aircraft that fits the needs of todays CF? i just think you like to belittle people who actually have some knowledge about what our CF needs and it coming from an army guy it doesnt sit well with you... F-22 300million depending on quantity of purchase and maintenance/spare parts/training contracts, US congress refuses foreign sales of the aircraft... F-35 35-50million depending on variant, quantity and maintenance/spare parts/training contracts; not yet a proven platform... F/A-18E/F Super Hornet proven, sophisticated, low maintenance cost and fits the multi-role specs needed by the canadian airforce... everyone is in love with stealth but its track record of high maintenace costs is not plausible for the CF if we only plan on buying 15-25 aircraft...


----------



## aesop081

RAGINCANADIAN said:
			
		

> and yes i did and people were still asking why not F-22...



And the issue of "no exports" has been raised several times already.



> and as for the price of the F-35, depending on model and quantity ordered each unit would cost between 35-50 million not including parts and other contracts through Lockheed-Martin...



Nice ballpark figure but , not all contracts relating to an airplane go through the OEM.



> The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet would be a better buy considering it is a brand new airframe and combat proven as well as has 2 engines....



Raffale and Typhoon also have 2 engines. Raffale has made its combat debut and performed well.



> something the airforce has a love affair with...



Theres a reason for that "love affair". I have a love affair with my 4 engines too.......


----------



## aesop081

RAGINCANADIAN said:
			
		

> i just think you like to belittle people who actually have some knowledge about what our CF needs ...



Yeah, i'm sorry. I dont know what i am talking about when it comes to military aviation. I read AW&ST once too many times. I will go back to signing the Tac Vest's praise in the kit forums.


----------



## RAGINCANADIAN

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> And the issue of "no exports" has been raised several times already.
> 
> Nice ballpark figure but , not all contracts relating to an airplane go through the OEM.
> 
> Raffale and Typhoon also have 2 engines. Raffale has made its combat debut and performed well.
> 
> Theres a reason for that "love affair". I have a love affair with my 4 engines too.......



Having a free trade agreement with the US will make purchasing ANY aircraft from them more affrodable than any European platform.... And not to mention the cost of shipping parts from europe alone... not a bad idea those are great aircraft but the Typhoon is listed as 90million british pounds... OEM comment very true but to be realistic you have to figure it in and its better to lip home in a damaged twin/multi-engine plane than a single one agreed???


----------



## RAGINCANADIAN

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yeah, i'm sorry. I dont know what i am talking about when it comes to military aviation. I read AW&ST once too many times. I will go back to signing the Tac Vest's praise in the kit forums.
> 
> 
> 
> its funny how you stray away from the facts and realities OF WHAT WE NEED AND CAN AFFORD....


----------



## aesop081

RAGINCANADIAN said:
			
		

> you have to figure it in and its better to lip home in a damaged twin/multi-engine plane than a single one agreed???



I wouldnt know anything about that.

I never once said we should buy a single-engined fighter. Last time i checked Typhoon and Raffale have 2 just like Super Hornet.



> its funny how you stray away from the facts and realities OF WHAT WE NEED AND CAN AFFORD....



We need to replace the CF-188 sooner rather than later. My personal preference is towards Raffale or Typhoon. We can afford both. Both are already operational with a proven track record, unlike the JSF.


----------



## RAGINCANADIAN

I totally agree with the PROVEN capabilities but again for the CF to get the best plane and bang for the dollar with the help of the free trade agreement with the states it would be a good idea to include the super hornet in the wish list.... i know you didnt prefer a single engine aircraft but the F-35 is a single engine aircraft and was apart of the discussion... but the typhoon would be a great buy a little more expensive than the F-35 but super cruise ability, advanced aerodynamic airframe and avionics... definitely a force to be reckoned with...


----------



## Ali G

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Alright....another army guy telling us how it is.
> 
> :



Don't mind me asking, but why are you so rude for?


----------



## medaid

Ali G said:
			
		

> Don't mind me asking, but why are you so rude for?



He's not... he's just tired of the same things happening over and over and over ad nauseum...


----------



## Loachman

I am not a fighter pilot, and am therefore hardly qualified to speculate on which aircraft should be bought to replace the CF18.

I am, however, a pilot, and therefore recognize that nobody here is privy to the information on which a sound decision can be based, no matter how far out of their lane they are.

I have over four thousand hours on a single-engined machine, and about ten percent of that amount on a twin-engined one. I feel no safer having two rather than one.

We pay people to thoroughly assess all of the relevant factors and make recommendations to the government.


----------



## HItorMiss

Well that and he has a point who they heck are army guys telling the airforce what kit they need, we don't have a clue how to do their job or the kit they need.


----------



## observor 69

Loachman said:
			
		

> I am not a fighter pilot, and am therefore hardly qualified to speculate on which aircraft should be bought to replace the CF18.
> 
> I am, however, a pilot, and therefore recognize that nobody here is privy to the information on which a sound decision can be based, no matter how far out of their lane they are.
> 
> I have over four thousand hours on a single-engined machine, and about ten percent of that amount on a twin-engined one. I feel no safer having two rather than one.
> 
> We pay people to thoroughly assess all of the relevant factors and make recommendations to the government.




I've been around long enough to watch those involved in choosing/recommending the replacement for the Argus and the 104. 
The little info I picked up was only a small window into the thorough and lengthy process they went through to make a recommendation.
We are just entertaining ourselves with this discussion. And I love it.  ;D

Edit: spelling


----------



## Ali G

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> We are just entertaining ourselves with this discussion. And I love it.  ;D



Agreed.

I have a pet peeve against people who display "holier than thou" attitudes towards others. I mean come on guys, it's a just a thread, take it easy.


----------



## MarkOttawa

JSF Names A Price
Posted by Bill Sweetman, Editor in Chief of Defense Technology International, Aviation Week Group, at 5/21/2008
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A5e084622-f739-49a1-9c0b-ca790c301b4a



> A potentially important report from Australian Aviation magazine:
> http://www.ausaviation.com.au/aaexpress.htm#b
> Lockheed Martin will indeed offer a fixed price for international JSF partners. According to the magazine, Lockheed Martin business development VP George Standridge told Australian journalists touring Fort Worth that the price - to be set later this year and offered with US approval - *would be around $63 million in 2008 dollars. This is a basic flyaway price, typically a fraction of the total acquisition cost* [emphasis added].
> 
> A fixed price has also been offered in Norway, according to Standridge, where the Gripen team has been pushing hard on the pricing issue. (There's enough of the existing Gripen in the NG, together with an off-the-shelf engine, to permit them to offer a firm price.)
> 
> The price is higher than the estimated average F-35A price across the program - $51 to $57 million in 2008 dollars - but lower than the likely cost of low-rate initial production aircraft. The offer's intended to give customers an incentive not to slide their purchases to the right, into later and cheaper production years. Give us a firm order now, Lockheed Martin is saying, and we'll share the benefits with you.
> 
> One open question:  since the cost of a JSF in 2015 or later is not known, who eats the difference if it's much higher than today's estimate - as history suggests that it will be, whatever the program bosses say? It's a big gamble for Lockheed Martin, but if it's underwritten by the Pentagon it's a subsidy - and observers of the tanker deal, and the Boeing-versus-Airbus war generally, will note that the US hates subsidies.



Apparently our Air Force was *allocated $3.8 billion in 2007 for new fighters (just flyaway cost)*,
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63677.0/all.htmlhttp://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63677.0/all.html

and we now plan to buy 65:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63677/post-715190.html#msg715190

Now, at the F-35 flyaway price above of $63 million, *65 would cost us $4.1 billion*.  We had been planning to buy 80.  Has the number been reduced to meet the new price (roughly)?   

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ecco

There is an interesting video located at:
http://www.afa.org/MPEG/Air_Supremacy.asp

It's from the Air Force Association, a definitely pro-airpower US organization.  It does a good job at presenting arguments to convince for the need to modernize airframes against evolving threats.   It goes as far as saying that the US air supremacy is in jeopardy.  However, it does a bad job at convincing that either the F-22 or F-35 are up to the job.  There is even a slide presented in the video that would indicate that the PAK-FA would overmatch the F-35 two years after its introduction (2015 vs 2013).

I cannot judge of the validity of the presented arguments...  I can however wonder about what aim they want to achieve in this video, except create fear...


----------



## belka

I'll believe a CF-18 replacement when it taxies onto the ramp in Cold Lake.


----------



## jzaidi1

Let's hope we all see a twin engine replacement taxi onto the ramp in Cold Lake   Just spoke with a former CF-18 Pilot last night and he is dreading a single-engine replacement for obvious reasons - two engines are better than one.  He told be about a time in the CF-18 when one of his engines conked out over the artic - had it not been for engine #2 he would have been in big trouble!

J


----------



## Haletown

interesting article from Australia on the radar/SAM environments we could be flying into.  This type of assessment surely must factor into the decision about what aircraft we will procure to replace the 18's

http://tinyurl.com/6g5f2c


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

It seems to ME that stealth and radar are compariable to armour and bigger bombs in the sense that the stealth plane will be trumped by a better radar which in turn will be trumped by a better plane etc.  Similar to bigger bombs equate to better armour which in turn develops bigger bombs.


----------



## OldSolduer

"Alright....another army guy telling us how it is."

OK Now I'm insulted.

Yes I'm an "army guy" and infantry at that. My knuckles do not drag on the ground, and I'm a fairly well informed on several military and non military subjects. The Air Force does not own the patent on intelligence, education or common sense.
Does it ever occur to you that us "army guys" have an interest in what aircraft the CF purchases? We ride in them and depend on them for Close Air Support. We may not be "experts" but we are fairly knowledgable on several subjects, fighter a/c being one of them.
Moral of the story is.....don't judge a book by its cover.


----------



## Fusaki

> "Alright....another army guy telling us how it is."
> 
> OK Now I'm insulted.
> 
> Yes I'm an "army guy" and infantry at that. My knuckles do not drag on the ground, and I'm a fairly well informed on several military and non military subjects. The Air Force does not own the patent on intelligence, education or common sense.
> Does it ever occur to you that us "army guys" have an interest in what aircraft the CF purchases? We ride in them and depend on them for Close Air Support. We may not be "experts" but we are fairly knowledgable on several subjects, fighter a/c being one of them.
> Moral of the story is.....don't judge a book by its cover.



I'm not insulted at all.

I thought the end state of the drama a couple weeks ago (non-issue kit thread) was "I won't tell you how to do your job, and you don't tell me how to do mine." I won't tell AF guys about aircraft and AF guys won't tell me about chest rigs. Whats fair is fair.

I'm sure that you're reasonably well informed on this subject, but discussions like this should be driven by those who make a living at working with aircraft. You and I both depend on the AF to do it's job, but it's better to trust them to do it the way they think is best.  I've debated Chinooks Vs Blackhawks at work among infantry guys, but I wouldn't drive down to 427 Sqn and talk like I was a SME.


----------



## Loachman

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I'm not insulted at all.
> 
> I thought the end state of the drama a couple weeks ago (non-issue kit thread) was "I won't tell you how to do your job, and you don't tell me how to do mine." I won't tell AF guys about aircraft and AF guys won't tell me about chest rigs. Whats fair is fair.
> 
> I'm sure that you're reasonably well informed on this subject, but discussions like this should be driven by those who make a living at working with aircraft. You and I both depend on the AF to do it's job, but it's better to trust them to do it the way they think is best.  I've debated Chinooks Vs Blackhawks at work among infantry guys, but I wouldn't drive down to 427 Sqn and talk like I was a SME.



And that, although more detailed, diplomatic, and eloquent than the more concise controversial response, is exactly it. I am a pilot, but fighter selection is outside of my lane regardless. Were there any fighter pilots in here who wished to speak up I'd certainly listen and possibly question.

Infantry guys are definitely qualified to talk about certain aspects of helicopters, such as space and lift capapabilities, comfort, ease of getting in and out, the abilities of crews to navigate decently or not, and other things which directly affect them but the technical aspects are best left to the specialists.

As for Tac Vests, I do get to wear those, although not as frequently as many, so I do have a "vest"ed interest in that area. I am, however, still very much a seeker of knowledge and benefit of others' experience regarding those.


----------



## belka

Fireball said:
			
		

> Let's hope we all see a twin engine replacement taxi onto the ramp in Cold Lake   Just spoke with a former CF-18 Pilot last night and he is dreading a single-engine replacement for obvious reasons - two engines are better than one.  He told be about a time in the CF-18 when one of his engines conked out over the artic - had it not been for engine #2 he would have been in big trouble!



I would support a single-engine fighter if it was as cheap to replace as the F-16's (considered disposable fighters). Unfortunately, it looks like we are stuck with the F-35. If we do go twin, our only options are the superbug, the raptor, a european product or Sukhoi's. Just throwing that last one in for shits and giggles.  ;D



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> "Alright....another army guy telling us how it is."
> 
> OK Now I'm insulted.
> 
> Yes I'm an "army guy" and infantry at that. My knuckles do not drag on the ground, and I'm a fairly well informed on several military and non military subjects. The Air Force does not own the patent on intelligence, education or common sense.
> Does it ever occur to you that us "army guys" have an interest in what aircraft the CF purchases? We ride in them and depend on them for Close Air Support. We may not be "experts" but we are fairly knowledgable on several subjects, fighter a/c being one of them.
> Moral of the story is.....don't judge a book by its cover.



Aircrew are a special breed that are on top of the totem pole. U/Sing their aircraft on a start for no reason usually brings them back down to earth. "No sir, you can't go flying today".


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

NINJA said:
			
		

> I would support a single-engine fighter if it was as cheap to replace as the F-16's (considered disposable fighters). Unfortunately, it looks like we are stuck with the F-35. If we do go twin, our only options are the superbug, the raptor, a european product or Sukhoi's. Just throwing that last one in for shits and giggles.  ;D



I think you meant you threw in the last two for shits and giggles considering the Raptor is off the table for all but the US.


----------



## Loachman

NINJA said:
			
		

> I would support a single-engine fighter if it was as cheap to replace as the F-16's (considered disposable fighters).



I would support a fighter, regardless of its number of engines, if the people who had to operate it in combat thought that it was the best one for its roles.



			
				NINJA said:
			
		

> Aircrew are a special breed that are on top of the totem pole. U/Sing their aircraft on a start for no reason usually brings them back down to earth. "No sir, you can't go flying today".



Are you wilfullly admitting to being so unprofessional that you would cause a mission to be aborted for no valid reason other than, perhaps, more "shits and giggles"?

If so, it is you who are, thankfully, the"special breed". You would not last long at my Squadron with an attitude like that.


----------



## belka

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I think you meant you threw in the last two for shits and giggles considering the Raptor is off the table for all but the US.



For now it is. I can see an eventual export to Australia or Japan, Canada on the other hand will probably see something less advanced.


----------



## aesop081

NINJA said:
			
		

> Aircrew are a special breed that are on top of the totem pole. U/Sing their aircraft on a start for no reason usually brings them back down to earth. "No sir, you can't go flying today".





			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> If so, it is you who are, thankfully, the"special breed". You would not last long at my Squadron with an attitude like that.



You wouldnt last long at mine either. Hopefully you and your attitude never cross paths with me.


----------



## Good2Golf

NINJA said:
			
		

> ....Aircrew are a special breed that are on top of the totem pole. U/Sing their aircraft on a start for no reason usually brings them back down to earth. "No sir, you can't go flying today".



NINJA, you lack of apparent professionalism is mind-boggling.  I hope for your sake, that this is only verbal "bluster" here on the forum, and that it does not accurately reflect how you have actually conducted yourself on the line.

Anyone in the business knows that when the aircraft captain signs acceptance of the aircraft in the log set, it is now "his/her" aircraft until such time as they release it back to the maintenance authority on the green sheet.  You would be in no position to "U/S" the aircraft on start for "no reason".  That's absolute crap you're talking.  

Furthermore, aircrew are only 1/3 of the Operator-Maintainer-Supporter equation.  If there's something special that sets them apart, it's that they, unlike the maintainers or supports, are [normally] the only ones potentially not coming back from a mission if the machine doesn't work as advertised.  

As those who have served with me will attest, I am an incredibly easy-going individual; however, don't think for a second that I wouldn't have the SCWO march someone doing such a thing as you mention before me without their headress on!  Such conduct is absolutely unacceptable.


----------



## MedTechStudent

Its good to see this thread is _still_ in full swing.  

All I'm going to say is that I don't know, and what ever aircraft the pilots who have to fly them think is the most suitable, thats the right choice.  

I don't think you or anyone should argue or press your luck with the experience DS who have obviously BTDT.  For all I know you have as well but since your profile does not disclose it I have to assume otherwise.

Just some advice from a fellow member.  

Cheers!


----------



## belka

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> NINJA, you lack of apparent professionalism is mind-boggling.  I hope for your sake, that this is only verbal "bluster" here on the forum, and that it does not accurately reflect how you have actually conducted yourself on the line.
> 
> Anyone in the business knows that when the aircraft captain signs acceptance of the aircraft in the log set, it is now "his/her" aircraft until such time as they release it back to the maintenance authority on the green sheet.  You would be in no position to "U/S" the aircraft on start for "no reason".  That's absolute crap you're talking.
> 
> Furthermore, aircrew are only 1/3 of the Operator-Maintainer-Supporter equation.  If there's something special that sets them apart, it's that they, unlike the maintainers or supports, are [normally] the only ones potentially not coming back from a mission if the machine doesn't work as advertised.
> 
> As those who have served with me will attest, I am an incredibly easy-going individual; however, don't think for a second that I wouldn't have the SCWO march someone doing such a thing as you mention before me without their headress on!  Such conduct is absolutely unacceptable.



Apparently, sarcasm is something this place lacks, not to mention the slightest sense of humour.

BTW, I don't see how my posts made here should reflect how I conduct myself on the line or at work. They are completely different scenerios and have nothing to do with eachother.


----------



## Loachman

You might want to be a little more careful in how you word your posts in future, then.

I went through several of your previous ones before composing my response and the overal impression that they gave me was entirely consistent with my impression of your post in question.

That three aircrew members, who have rather well developed senses of humour, came to the same conclusion should give you cause to reassess your style as well.

I will grant you that this form of communication is far from perfect - hastily typed for the most part, and lacking in tone and body language - and is easily misinterpreted. I generally give people the benefit of the doubt, but this one combined with certain predecessors made it hard to do so.

Sarcasm can backfire at the best of times.


----------



## NovaScotiaNewfie

Are we to look at this type of discussion as just that? A what if topic or try to factor real facts?

What I mean is the Raptor would carry a far too price tag for Canada, plus you have to look at the costs of maintenance, training. I have no idea how procurement is actually done but I would assume that for our budget Canada has to look at what role they would need..air superiority vs a fighter strike aircraft and what would fill the needs for the AF/CF as a whole and what are reasonable costs.

I also assume that when it comes to equipment especially major/expensive equipment like tanks, aircraft, ships they consider what likely mission's Canada is to be involved in over the forceable future and what best fits that need. They would also consider what would fit the role of the air defence of Canada and would they be likely to be deployed overseas for either figher, bomber duties or close air support.

My guess would be if this was a choice that the DND was going to look at the F-35 would be the likely choice on costs alone, plus would the US ever be likely to sell the F-22 even to it's allies.

I tired to make this a somewhat intelligent/realistic answer. As I said I don't really know how procurement is done.


----------



## MarkOttawa

NovaScotiaNewfie:  Well put.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## lonewolf84

I think the F-35 is better than F/A-22  for Canada. Why? He is less expensive than F/A-22 and can do the same job of our CF-18. For me, the big problem with F-35 is it's a single engine, so if you have a engine prob over the arctic,  :skull:  .  So when did we do air combat against fighter for the last time??? Yes, a lot of time we intercept Russian bomber over Canadian NORAD region. I think the last air to air combat and kill score by the Canada is over corea. We do a lot of CAS mission over kosovo in 1998-99 and air defence patrol over Kuwait and Irak in 1990-1991.

sorry for my english, i speaf french.


----------



## Loachman

Your English is far better than my French. No need to apologize.

It's not a popularity contest, though, and votes of members here do not count.

The selection process is far more complex and thorough than that.

It's not the last fighter-versus-fighter battle that is significant, it's the next one.

It's not the last or current threat situation that is significant, it's the next one.

And, whatever that's considered to be at the top, it's not going to form part of any discussion at that level in public, as we're trying to be nice to those people at present.

True performance data, radar and weapons capabilities, and other pertinent factors are not going to be published either.

Without any sound information to go on, this is all just idle speculation by people who completely lack the knowledge necessary and will never have to employ it.

And that includes me.


----------



## aesop081

lonewolf84 said:
			
		

> For me, the big problem with F-35 is it's a single engine, so if you have a engine prob over the arctic,  :skull:  .



Lots of peple bring this up. I used to be a firm beleiver in that argumen too. That being said, alot of other "northern" countries use single-engined fighters in similar conditions.




> So when did we do air combat against fighter for the last time???



Wait a minute, isnt that exactly what we were saying about tanks and artillery not so long ago.


----------



## Loachman

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Lots of peple bring this up. I used to be a firm beleiver in that argumen too. That being said, alot of other "northern" countries use single-engined fighters in similar conditions.



Most of my 4000-plus hours has been spent quite happily in a single-engined machine and it never gave me cause for concern.

Most of that was over dry, relatively level ground in daylight, yes, but plenty was at night over wilderness or urban areas (police helicopter), mountainous terrain far from civilization both above and below the Arctic Circle, and open (enough) water. Engines are extremely reliable (note that airliners have gone from four to two engines as reliability has improved), and, besides, there are plenty of other things that can go wrong catastrophically.

The only Kiowa engine failures that I know of, during my time flying them, were fuel starvation (and one can have all of the engines that one wants, but when the tank runs dry...), inadvertent sabotage by kids messing with an unguarded Kiowa (they drained the oil tank), and a factory quality control problem that led to a couple of flame-outs at idle RPM only and never in flight. I've known guys who have died from a bizarre hydraulic failure and a freewheeling unit failure, several lucky enough to get onto the ground before their transmission completely destroyed itself internally, and many (including me) stranded for varying lengths of time in hospitable and less hospitable places for various minor or precautionary aircraft-related reasons.

An AWACS was lost several years ago due to multiple large bird strikes in several, if not all, engines.

There are no guarantees, certainly not based upon engine quantity alone. Engine quantity is only one of many factors.

This thread reminds me of a group of eleven-year-old boys discussing the finer points of sex.


----------



## Good2Golf

lonewolf84 said:
			
		

> I think the F-35 is better than F/A-22  for Canada. Why? He is less expensive than F/A-22 and can do the same job of our CF-18. For me, the big problem with F-35 is it's a single engine, so if you have a engine prob over the arctic,  :skull:  .  So when did we do air combat against fighter for the last time??? Yes, a lot of time we intercept Russian bomber over Canadian NORAD region. I think the last air to air combat and kill score by the Canada is over corea. We do a lot of CAS mission over kosovo in 1998-99 and air defence patrol over Kuwait and Irak in 1990-1991.
> 
> sorry for my english, i speaf french.



Lonewolf, it's always an interesting point about single engine aircraft.  With my own personal experience, I have only ever had one catastrophic engine failure, where a power turbine blade failed, caused the N2 turbine shroud to collapse and broke off all the N2 turbine blades, which went every which way, including through the combustion chamber casing, out the exhaust stack, many turbine fragments impaling themselves in the fuselage and main rotor blade, and causing a general mess of my chopper.  The aircraft was a Twin Huey, with two engines...some of us consider that (statistically) means twice as much chance for something to go wrong.    The F-16 has one of the best records for engine-related shutdowns in flight.  Interestingly, one of the most reliable helicopters in the world for flight hours flown is the Bell 206 Jet Ranger (including military variants).  Often the benefit of a second (or multiple) engine is to make the effects of an engine failure less, not necessarily to eliminate engine failures altogether.  Some single-engined aircraft are the extreme...they couldn't operate as well with a second engine (Harrier, etc...)   

I'd rather have a single-engined aircraft that was more reliable than a dual-engined aircraft that had less reliability.  In the end, the required characteristics of the aircraft will drive what the best solution would be.  I see the F-35/F-22 debate as the next generation of the F-16/F-15[F-18] debate.  It's not really a debate at all...these are different classes of aircraft and the final determining factor would be the mission set that you want to accomplish with the capability.

cheers
G2G


----------



## Loachman

G2G is long past eleven.


----------



## MarkOttawa

F-35: $110 million!!!
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.37874693.1212754793.eq8G0H8AAAEAABN2YgYAAAAF&manuel_call_cat=5&manuel_call_prod=94891&manuel_call_mod=feature&modele=jdc_inter



> The Senate Armed Services Committee’s June 3 hearing on the cost of Pentagon weapon programs has thrown up a couple of nuggets that demonstrate just how politically vulnerable the Joint Strike Fighter program has become.
> 
> In his opening statement ,
> http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=298687
> SASC Chairman Carl Levin quoted a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report which estimated that recent cost overruns on the Pentagon’s 95 major weapons programs amount to $295 billion.
> 
> To put that figure into perspective, Levin said, “For $295 billion, we could buy, at current prices, two new aircraft carriers for $10 billion each and 8 Virginia class submarines for $2.5 billion each, and 500 V-22 Ospreys for $120 million each, and *500 Joint Strike Fighters for $110 million each* (emphasis added-Ed.), and 10,0000 MRAPs for $1.4 million each -- all of that and still have enough money left over to pay for the entire $130 billion Future Combat System program."
> 
> Two of these figures deserve special attention.
> 
> The first is the $110 million that Levin quotes as the current unit price for the Joint Strike Fighter. This is the first time an official source has conceded that the JSF will cost substantially more than the $55-$65 million consistently quoted by the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin.
> 
> While neither it nor the Pentagon has challenged Levin’s figure, Lockheed continues to quote far lower prices to customers. Referring to a possible JSF sale to Israel, Lockheed spokesman John Smith told Reuters June 4 that the "average unit recurring flyaway costs" for the F-35A "have remained stable in the upper $40 million range in baseline 2002 dollars,” which is at variance from all other estimates.
> 
> (Admittedly, Levin’s price is in current dollars, while Lockheed’s is in FY2002 dollars, but six years of 3% inflation would increase Lockheed’s price by less than 20%, to well under $50 million.)
> 
> Levin’s $110 million price tag vindicates the GAO’s statement, set out in a March 11 report , that it has no confidence in the ability of the Joint Strike Fighter program office to accurately estimate costs.
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf
> 
> GAO’s doubts were bolstered this week when the Project On Government Oversight, a watchdog group, released the executive summary of a November 2007 report by the Pentagon’s own Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) that states, in a nutshell, that Lockheed is virtually unable to control costs on the JSF program and that its system for tracking costs and schedules has generated "useless" or "suspect" data...
> http://pogoarchives.org/m/ns/jsf/dcma-report-20071119.pdf



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## stegner

Maybe Canada will get F-22's after all?  



> U.S. considers sale of F-22 to Israel
> Published: June 6, 2008 at 8:05 PM
> 
> 
> JERUSALEM, June 6 (UPI) -- The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman said he would consider lifting a ban on the sale of the F-22 "Raptor" to Israel.
> 
> "I'm a strong supporter of Israel getting all the material and equipment they need. I certainly would look at it," said Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., said about the possibility of removing the restriction on selling the F-22 stealth fighter jet.
> 
> Until now, Berman's panel has blocked the sale of the F-22 to Israel, the Jerusalem Post reported Friday.
> 
> "We're trying to lay a foundation for a tougher-minded evaluation of what assistance Israel needs," Berman said.
> 
> The F-22 is seen as a major advantage in a potential Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear plants because it can get past the most advanced defense technology, the newspaper said.




http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/06/US_considers_sale_of_F-22_to_Israel/UPI-80111212797128/


----------



## karl28

I Highly doubt that the Canadian Air Force will ever see F-22 just on the cost factor alone .  Unfortunately the Air Force  will be lucky to get the F-35 that where promised . The next generation fighters are going to be more expensive than anything ever seen before not just in the purchase price but I imagine the maintenance side of things to .


----------



## belka

stegner said:
			
		

> Maybe Canada will get F-22's after all?



That would be quite the wet dream. Problem is, the Raptor is First strike aircraft, perfect for Israel, not so much for us. We could get 10 F-22's that would be used for National Defense, unless Canada decides to start a war, which is unlikely. 

Why does Canada need 60+ fighter planes for?


----------



## YZT580

Simple answer to the question why:  so you don't ever have to use them, that is why


----------



## jzaidi1

Fighter jets are needed in Canada as an insurance policy and a deterrent.  The US can't cover us 100% of the time nor would they care to - their interest in Canada is our resources.

J


----------



## YZT580

Too true!  The normal CADIZ is what about 100 nm.  That would put the intercept area for the US about Quebec city, Ottawa, Pembroke, Eliot Lake Winnepeg, Calgary etc. etc. We are the ones who want to push it further back.

On a different note but the same topic, how would the SAAB stack up.  I have noticed it is making a number of international sales lately after being treated as an afterthought for years by just about everyone.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Simple answer to the question why:  so you don't ever have to use them, that is why



Because sovereignty comes with a hefty price, we have been suckling on the US/NATO teat for so long that we have forgotten that simple fact. If you don’t like the US having a large say in what we do, then it’s time to pay the piper.


----------



## belka

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Simple answer to the question why:  so you don't ever have to use them, that is why



Agreed.

But surely 60 isn't enough for anykind of national defense. You would probably only have at the most 20 that are serviceable, and only mabye 6-8 of them that are armed with missles. Lets not forget the number of qualified pilots. If a full-scale invasion occures from China or Russia, those 6-8 airplanes won't do much. Unfortunately, now with our CF-18's or later with the new F-35's, the US will ultimately control Canadian skies in the event of war.


----------



## tomahawk6

F-35B STOVL had its first flight this week. 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/061108ae_f35B_firstflight.html
http://www.nbc5i.com/technology/16574967/detail.html


----------



## belka

I had the opportunity to tour the LockMart assembly plant in Ft. Worth while on TD this spring. Great looking aircraft, made a huge racket taking off on full AB. Don't think it's the right aircraft for Canada though.


----------



## tabernac

Just an unknowing civvie here, but what would the problem be with replacing, at a 1:1 ratio or better (read: or more airframes) with F-18E/F?

I understand that it would be a generation behind the -22 and -35.


----------



## observor 69

Could it be because we would be a generation behind the bad guys ?


----------



## Loachman

And product support (parts, etcetera) would become a much bigger issue much sooner.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

I was trying to get a better grip on the potential costs of the F-35, which was a bit frustrating, to put it lightly.  But I wrote a post about it at _The Torch_ which may be of interest to some of you:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/06/cost-is-four-letter-word.html

The chart comparing costs of various fighter aircraft with two different methodologies was an interesting find for me, and illustrates just how tough it is to nail down true costs.

LockMart doesn't like talking about prices outside of contract negotiations, and I get that from a business standpoint.  But it does make it tough to sell value for dollar to a cynical taxpaying public.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> I was trying to get a better grip on the potential costs of the F-35, which was a bit frustrating, to put it lightly.  But I wrote a post about it at _The Torch_ which may be of interest to some of you:
> 
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/06/cost-is-four-letter-word.html
> 
> The chart comparing costs of various fighter aircraft with two different methodologies was an interesting find for me, and illustrates just how tough it is to nail down true costs.
> 
> LockMart doesn't like talking about prices outside of contract negotiations, and I get that from a business standpoint.  But it does make it tough to sell value for dollar to a cynical taxpaying public.



Interesting read.  If the $177m for an F-22 vs $118m for an F-35 is accurate, with (2) engines, amongst other superiority features, I'd rather have fewer F-22's than more F-35's even if it meant we had to go with a hi-lo mix of F-22's with reconditioned F-18's still configured for multi-role, but slanted towards ground-pounding/naval interdiction.  

Specifically, when facing North towards an emerging Russia, I'd consider the F-22's as the pointy end of the spear to be nearly invaluable as a deterrent force.


Matthew.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

Given the fact that there are already Raptors at Elmdorf in Alaska, I figure that would also pose a pretty decent deterrent to the Russians, regardless of what we end up buying, Matthew.  But I see your point.  Hell, given a big enough budget, I'd be right there with you on the F-22 - it's going to be the best interceptor in the world for awhile, I'd say.

The CF remains an army-centric fighting force, though, and I'd guess that the boys and girls in green will have a pretty big say in what gets bought - and it had better support their operations.  I'll bet the B-variant gets a serious look from our folks.

It's going to be interesting seeing what ends up happening with the F-35.  It was supposed to be to the F-22 what the F-16 was to the F-15 in some ways: a cheaper, more versatile workhorse.  But with the cost overruns, one wonders how cheap it will end up in the long run.  And if you're a country without the U.S. defence budget, will it be cheap enough to entertain buying in sufficient quantities?  I mean, we're already talking about replacing a fleet of over a hundred old fighters with 65 new fighters.  I know the new ones will be more capable, but unless that means they can be in two places, flying two sorties at the same time, at some point numbers are their own strength...


----------



## jzaidi1

I like the Australian take on things - buy up F-18 E/Fs as an interim solution that could also serve as a complement to the next gen fleet they are going to purchase.  Less fighters means more open airspace for an enemy to poke through - the performance of F-35s vs F-18 are not substanitally different so I'm not sold on the JSF...yet.  F-22s on the other hand have supercruise and can get from point A to point B a little quicker which may justify buying lower numbers than the current # of CF-18s we have now.

J


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Babbling Brooks said:
			
		

> Given the fact that there are already Raptors at Elmdorf in Alaska, I figure that would also pose a pretty decent deterrent to the Russians, regardless of what we end up buying, Matthew.  But I see your point.  Hell, given a big enough budget, I'd be right there with you on the F-22 - it's going to be the best interceptor in the world for awhile, I'd say.
> 
> The CF remains an army-centric fighting force, though, and I'd guess that the boys and girls in green will have a pretty big say in what gets bought - and it had better support their operations.  I'll bet the B-variant gets a serious look from our folks.
> 
> It's going to be interesting seeing what ends up happening with the F-35.  It was supposed to be to the F-22 what the F-16 was to the F-15 in some ways: a cheaper, more versatile workhorse.  But with the cost overruns, one wonders how cheap it will end up in the long run.  And if you're a country without the U.S. defence budget, will it be cheap enough to entertain buying in sufficient quantities?  I mean, we're already talking about replacing a fleet of over a hundred old fighters with 65 new fighters.  I know the new ones will be more capable, but unless that means they can be in two places, flying two sorties at the same time, at some point numbers are their own strength...



The way I see it, although a good ally, we shouldn't count on the United States to step in to protect our sovereignty in the Arctic because the United States' objective is to carve as large a section of the arctic for themselves as possible.  So although I'd doubt they'd ever militarily conspire with Russia to 'take' said territory, I can easily visualize them taking a political stand in concert with Russia, and then hanging us out to dry to protect ourselves (which bluntly is something we should be able to do unilaterally and should never been seen as 'optional').

RE:  Costs/Budget - It would be interesting to see what the cost differential would be between acquiring and operating a 68-aircraft F-35 fleet vs a 36-aircraft F-22 fleet and a 36-aircraft F-18 fleet as the more I think about it, the more the hi-lo mix makes sense to me if the $ numbers are even close.


Matthew.


----------



## belka

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> reconditioned F-18's



There is only so much you can do. You can replace critical parts of the aircraft with new ones, but you can't replace the airframe which on many is already cracked. The CF-18's are close to being on their last legs and the sooner a replacement is decided the sooner they can retire on pedistals across Canada. As far as the F-22, I've heard that they aren't exactly the most maintence friendly or reliable aircraft. So lets say 34 are purchased, 17 each for Cold Lake and Bagotville, you would have a low servicability rate for a Squardon with low amount of frames. I'd rather see each location get atleast 70-80 smaller, less expensive, NEW generation fighters.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I thought the F-22 wasn't going to be exported??  IF that's the case, that discussion is kinda... useless?

Personally, I don't think the idea of a single engine fighter over such a large country with so little airports (especially up north, where I could see most of the action happenning in the next decades), it's very risky.  I don't see how can a pilot survive the post-ejection in the cold water of the North.  

I would think the F-18E/F would be a very good option.  Similar airframes and systems - the techs and pilots are familiar with the plane from day 1 (cuts down training costs).  Parts will be available for quite a long time I think.  The US Navy just finished converting its Tomcat squadron with the E/F version and the Prowler squadrons are beginning to be replaced with the G version.  Plus it's dual engine.  

We don't need last generation fighters.  There will be ways to lock the "invisible" airplanes on radar soon enough.  

Max


----------



## belka

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I would think the F-18E/F would be a very good option.  Similar airframes and systems - the techs and pilots are familiar with the plane from day 1 (cuts down training costs).  Parts will be available for quite a long time I think.  The US Navy just finished converting its Tomcat squadron with the E/F version and the Prowler squadrons are beginning to be replaced with the G version.  Plus it's dual engine.
> 
> We don't need last generation fighters.  There will be ways to lock the "invisible" airplanes on radar soon enough.



The Superbugs are only 20% compatible with our current C/D models. Everything is different, the engines are bigger, the landing gear is beefier, flight controls are larger, etc. I had a chance to compare a Superhornet to our Hornet side by side and the difference was very noticeable. The E/F models are also last (4th) gen fighters, so again, we won't be upgrading to the latest and greatest.

Also, today's engines are extremely reliable and failures are rarely an occurrence. The engines are the most reliable part of the hornet. I don't think anyone feels safer crossing the Atlantic on a 2 engine aircraft vise one with 4.


----------



## SupersonicMax

NINJA, yes, the airplane is different but the systems are very similar from what I hear.  The cockpit layout is very similar which makes the transition easier form the Hornet to the Superhornet.  I'm not talking about compatibility but similarity (by the way, we have upgraded A/B models, not C/D.  The D version was designed to have a WSO in the back, which our B models obviously don't have).  

2 vs 4, no question, I feel safe in both.  1 engine vs 2?  I'll take the 2 engines thank you.  You ask the question to any Canadian Fighter pilot out there right now and they'll tell you the same thing I'm telling you.  And you can also tell that to my instructor and good friend that ejected after a HP Turbine Blade failure on the Hawk not too long ago.  

Max


----------



## observor 69

F-16 vs F-18, we chose  18's, why? Two engines. At least that's the way I remember it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You ask the question to any Canadian Fighter pilot out there right now and they'll tell you the same thing I'm telling you."

Would love to if any where on this board.


----------



## belka

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You ask the question to any Canadian Fighter pilot out there right now and they'll tell you the same thing I'm telling you.



I'm not doubting that pilots FEEL safer in a 2 engined fighter jet. I overheard a conversation at work with our pilots discussing the single-engined F-35. No doubt they prefer having two engines flying over the Arctic in the middle of winter. I wonder how many F-16's were lost due to engine failures.



			
				Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> F-16 vs F-18, we chose  18's, why? Two engines. At least that's the way I remember it.



If two engines are such a concern to the Air Force, then why put all this money towards the F-35? They possibly couldn't change their minds so soon.


----------



## SupersonicMax

NINJA said:
			
		

> *I'm not doubting that pilots FEEL safer in a 2 engined fighter jet*. I overheard a conversation at work with our pilots discussing the single-engined F-35. No doubt they prefer having two engines flying over the Arctic in the middle of winter. I wonder how many F-16's were lost due to engine failures.
> 
> If two engines are such a concern to the Air Force, then why put all this money towards the F-35? They possibly couldn't change their minds so soon.



Remember (or were you in the CF when that happenned?) when a guy's jet coming back from the East Coast threw a whole turbine out the side of his jets?  He had to shut down his left engine.  If it had been a single engine aircraft, he would have had to use the most reliable piece of kit in the airplane IMHO, the Ejection Seat (not the engines like you seem to suggest).  Thankfully, he had 1 good engine (the second one) and was able to recover at home plate where he engaged the cable IIRC.  

I fly a single engine jet every day (well, almost every day) and even though I love the plane and the flying, I can't wait to see the day I'll fly something with more than 1 engine on it. There was so far (in the 8 years we've been operating the Hawk), 2 crashes due to Mechanical Engine Failure (that is 100% of the airplanes that have been written off).  How many airplanes did we write off in the 25 years we've been operating the Hornet have been written off due to Engine Faillures?

Max


----------



## belka

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> How many airplanes did we write off in the 25 years we've been operating the Hornet have been written off due to Engine Faillures?



From what I've found so far out of 18, only 1. The other crashes did not indicate the causes however, so who knows what the real number is.

Is the reason why Canada does consider single-engined (besides the F-35) because of the size of the country and lack of airfields? The dutch have F-16's and although the country is small, I doubt that if one of them lost thrust, he would be able to find an airfield to land in. Fighters aren't exactly the best gliders. I'd rather have a sqn full of "disposable" fighters, like the 16's, which are cheap and easier to maintain.


----------



## SupersonicMax

The F-35 isn't quite disposable, especially if you have only 60...

EDIT:  Fighters aren't gliders but they can still glide at a decent ratio.  They don't just fall like a brick.


----------



## belka

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The F-35 isn't quite disposable, especially if you have only 60...



haha. But the F-35 isn't what I was refering to.


----------



## SupersonicMax

No, but we're not debating if we should buy F-16s..  But F-22, F-35 or an other potential candidate, the Superhornet.


----------



## tabernac

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> No, but we're not debating if we should buy F-16s..  But F-22, F-35 or an other potential candidate, the Superhornet.



Why dont we just sign a 2-part "super" contract with LockMart that details part 1 as temporary replacement using the Superhornet, and part 2 as permenant replacement with F-35? Part 1 would replace at 1:1 all combat and training aircraft, with only a few Superhornets as spares. 

After several years (call it 2025) the aircraft would A) be sold back to LockMart or B) be sold off to some deserving nation (wouldn't it be nice if that nation were Afghanistan?) as part 2 of the contract would be set in motion: phasing in x number of F-35s to equip 2 Cmbt Sqns and a Trg Sqn.

With 2025 as a (randomly selected date) teething problems should be a non-starter. One of the issues would be the training of the folks who repair these beasts.  Ideally by 2025 the cost for the F-35 would have fallen to a more reasonable level.


----------



## SupersonicMax

The Superhornet is built by Boeing, so that makes it just complicated right there.  Again, I'm not so sure how the 1 engine thing will fly.  The government spent some money on it already (just to secure the production of parts in Canada) but we never commited to the F-35 itself.  I personally hope it will fall through and we'll get something with 2 engines.

Superhornet Pros:  Cheaper, something we already are familiar with, maintenance (ie:  no big moving parts like the F-35), 2 engines.  

Max


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The Superhornet doesn't have big moving parts?


----------



## vonGarvin

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> The Superhornet doesn't have big moving parts?


Nope.  It's just one BIG moving part! ;D
(I'm sure it does, I think the "moving parts" phrase might have been a metaphor for "it's simpler to maintain")


----------



## tabernac

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The Superhornet is built by Boeing, so that makes it just complicated right there.



IIRC, Airbus pitched the idea that they would buy some Hercs for the CF to use, but they would worry about maintaining them. Once the A400M came online, the Hercs would be replaced. Again, Airbus would worry about the details.


----------



## belka

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> (I'm sure it does, I think the "moving parts" phrase might have been a metaphor for "it's simpler to maintain")



It's not called the "Superbug" for nothing.


----------



## SupersonicMax

NINJA, the F-35 isn't even operational yet.  The Superhornet is.  We needed a new fighter yesterday.  How many more years will it take before we see the first F-35 operational flight?  How many years of delay will it encounter?  

For the moving part comment, I know we would be getting the Land Version (non-STOL), but I was referring more to the Navy version (Big turbine rotating to redirect the thrust for STOL).  

Max


----------



## Good2Golf

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> NINJA, the F-35 isn't even operational yet.  The Superhornet is.  *We needed a new fighter yesterday*.  How many more years will it take before we see the first F-35 operational flight?  How many years of delay will it encounter?
> 
> For the moving part comment, I know we would be getting the Land Version (non-STOL), but I was referring more to the Navy version (Big turbine rotating to redirect the thrust for STOL).
> 
> Max



You mean we'll need a new fighter once the ECP583 R2 birds aren't supportable.  I suggest you ask some of the operational pilots around Cool Pool about the 583 birds.  Your incoming CO seemed pretty excited about the capabilities when I was talking to him last week....then again, he only has several thousand hours on the Hornet....

G2G


----------



## belka

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> NINJA, the F-35 isn't even operational yet.  The Superhornet is.  We needed a new fighter yesterday.  How many more years will it take before we see the first F-35 operational flight?  How many years of delay will it encounter?



Don't forget, this is the Canadian government we are talking about. They like to fly aircraft until they are completely coming apart in the sky. Take a look at the Herc, the Sea King, the Buffalo's, etc. From an recent CND AF article I read, the Hornets are at 25% of their life span. I agree, we needed new fighters yesterday. But what is the point of getting SuperHornets, a 4th gen fighter? 

We won't be like Australia and just get the new Hornets to supplement us until a 5th gen fighter is available. I believe it's a waste of time to get trained on a new airframe that will be in service for less than a decade. We simply don't have the people for that. 



> For the moving part comment, I know we would be getting the Land Version (non-STOL), but I was referring more to the Navy version (Big turbine rotating to redirect the thrust for STOL).



IIRC, Canada is interested in the F-35C, the carrier version. Reason being is that it has a larger wingspan which will allow it to hold more fuel, as well as stronger gear for those landings in Inuvik.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You mean we'll need a new fighter once the ECP583 R2 birds aren't supportable.  I suggest you ask some of the operational pilots around Cool Pool about the 583 birds.  Your incoming CO seemed pretty excited about the capabilities when I was talking to him last week....then again, he only has several thousand hours on the Hornet....
> 
> G2G



Removed for OPSEC.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Hopefully not OPSEC....with the IMP phase I and II almost complete making the new CF-188 a pretty impressive avionics platform, why wouldn't DND go Hi-Lo with the F-22, and then roll the IMP phase II-upgraded aircraft throught the U.S. Navy's Center Barrel Replacement program if we wanted to extend airframe life?

Again, I'm now probably officially beating a dead horse, but the Hi-Lo mix of F-22 with F-188 since the money has already been invested in IMP Phase I & II appears to me to make much more sense that complete abandonment of the F-188 to a single-engined F-35 (which is still an unproven commodity unlike the F-22).



Matthew.


----------



## observor 69

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You mean we'll need a new fighter once the ECP583 R2 birds aren't supportable.  I suggest you ask some of the operational pilots around Cool Pool about the 583 birds.  Your incoming CO seemed pretty excited about the capabilities when I was talking to him last week....then again, he only has several thousand hours on the Hornet....
> 
> G2G



FYI: ECP583 R2     http://www.scramble.nl/wiki/index.php?title=Boeing_(McDonnell_Douglas)_F/A-18_Hornet


----------



## hauger

Neat discussion.  Thing is though, the F-22 is not authorized for export.  Period.  Congress does not allow export.  The RAF and the RAAF have both shown up on the US doorstep with a big sack of money (with big $ signs painted on the side) looking to buy a mitt full, but were out and out denied.

Canada will be buying exactly zero F-22's.  That's the reality.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21223310-31477,00.html


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

hauger said:
			
		

> Neat discussion.  Thing is though, the F-22 is not authorized for export.  Period.  Congress does not allow export.  The RAF and the RAAF have both shown up on the US doorstep with a big sack of money (with big $ signs painted on the side) looking to buy a mitt full, but were out and out denied.
> 
> Canada will be buying exactly zero F-22's.  That's the reality.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21223310-31477,00.html



I guess someone did not tell the IDF, check reply#200 this very thread regarding whether or not Congress will export the F22.


----------



## hauger

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I guess someone did not tell the IDF, check reply#200 this very thread regarding whether or not Congress will export the F22.



Standby.....

Nope.  Still no sale.  The IAF would like to buy one, and it was considered the same as the RAAF and Japan.  Export is still barred by federal law.  Congress would have to repeal or amend that law, and they have refused so far to do so.  Wanna know why?  Well, you want an F-22, but they'd much rather sell you the export-friendly (but inferior) F-35.  Maybe, eventually, sometime in the future there might be an export version of the F-22, but I wouldn't go holding my breath.

Export Article:
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2894.html


----------



## tomahawk6

F-35 moving assembly line aims to produce one fighter per day.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/July/F-35fact.htm


----------



## karl28

tomahawk6  

                Thanks for posting that article I found it interesting to read .  I think its amazing that there hoping for one fighter per each working day that's pretty amazing feat if they can do it .    It will be interesting also to see how the new fighter operates in a theater of operation  .


----------



## tomahawk6

Another article about the F-35 training center scheduled to be built at Eglin AFB which will be operational in 2010 with aircraft arriving in 2011.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/July/Eglin.htm


----------



## Lonemonk

Canada can't afford the F-22 anyway. We'd be lucky to get the dregs of the F-35


----------



## North Star

My question is why do we need a very expensive yet advanced air superiority fighter with a degree of stealth capability?

Our primary adversary from a "Canada First" perspective is Russia. They have some fairly advanced aircraft, but with the appropriate munitions the JSF could probably stand toe to toe against them. From an expeditionary point of view, the requirement for an air superiority fighter is also a little weak. Usually, the CF is deployed as part of a multinational force and while I am all for having our own air superiority capability, we have an ally that is more than happy 90% of the time to oblige if the JSF isn't capable enough. 

What we really need is a fighter with a pretty solid sustainment piece (ei...spares for years to come) and the ability to not only fight for control of the skies, but to drop bombs on the ground. The JSF fills that requirement. Besides, if congress won't export it it's not even an option.


----------



## belka

North Star said:
			
		

> My question is why do we need a very expensive yet advanced air superiority fighter with a degree of stealth capability?



We don't. Stealth is mainly needed for a first-strike scenerio.



> Our primary adversary from a "Canada First" perspective is Russia.



Even then we wouldn't stand a chance. It's simple numbers and they have more fighters than we do.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

NINJA said:
			
		

> We don't. Stealth is mainly needed for a first-strike scenerio.
> 
> Even then we wouldn't stand a chance. It's simple numbers and they have more fighters than we do.



So you advocate we roll over for any bad dog on the street and surrender our sovereignty to those that would protect us? Why are in you even in the CF?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

NINJA, Serbs took down a F 117.  Better to die on your feet then live on your knees.


----------



## belka

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> So you advocate we roll over for any bad dog on the street and surrender our sovereignty to those that would protect us?



No. Point is, the 65 or so aircraft that are due to replace the 18's won't be enough to protect all of Canada. They will make nice airshow jets though.


----------



## aesop081

NINJA said:
			
		

> No. Point is, the 65 or so aircraft that are due to replace the 18's won't be enough to protect all of Canada. They will make nice airshow jets though.



When are you leaving the CF ?


----------



## belka

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> When are you leaving the CF ?



Could you atleast TRY to stay on topic?  :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

NINJA said:
			
		

> Could you atleast TRY to stay on topic?  :



Like you did? All you do is basically whine about equipment purchases. God forbid we get something according to the great ninja. :


----------



## belka

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Like you did? All you do is basically whine about equipment purchases. God forbid we get something according to the great ninja. :



What equipment purchases? God forbid the government purchases fighters from the 21st century.  :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

God forbid you start to smarten up and actually contribute something to this forum. :


----------



## Eye In The Sky

NINJA said:
			
		

> No. Point is, the 65 or so aircraft that are due to replace the 18's won't be enough to protect all of Canada. They will make nice airshow jets though.



2 words.

NORAD

NATO

PS - I didn't realize that you were posted to CFAWC or a member of the ADC, assisting the ADA, who is also, of course the DG Air FD (but I don't have to tell you that now, do I?) to the CAS.  

No idea what I am talking about?  In your spare time, a read of *B-GA-400-000/FP-000 * is a good starting point.  Specifically, Chapter 1 - CF Aerospace Doctrine Authority.

Question.  In its introduction, do you think the Phoenix missile was not a 'force multiplier' against the threat it was intended to go into combat against in the Soviet arsenal?  A single airframe is not like a single shot fired from a rifle, artillery piece, or tank.

Ok.  So that was NOT 2 words.  My apologies.  8)


----------



## tomahawk6

Fourth Lightning has rolled off the assembly line.









> FORT WORTH, Texas, August 18th, 2008 -- With one F-35 Lightning II aircraft in structural testing, two in flight test, six in final assembly and another 14 in various stages of production, Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] added to the program’s momentum on Saturday by finishing assembly of the fourth F-35 aircraft, a short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B.
> 
> “The completion of our fourth F-35 – and the growing line of aircraft now forming behind it – shows an emerging rhythm in our production line,” said Dan Crowley, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. “In just a few days we will have all three Lightning II variants in final assembly when we take delivery of the first F-35C carrier variant center fuselage. From the very first F-35, assembly quality has been unprecedented, and each successive aircraft is measurably better than the one that preceded it.”
> 
> The new aircraft was moved immediately to the flight line, where it will undergo an extensive battery of ground tests before its first flight in early 2009.
> 
> The first F-35B made its inaugural flight on June 11 and has completed nine missions. The first F-35A, a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) variant, has flown 45 times.
> 
> The U.S. Marine Corps is expected to operate about 340 F-35Bs. The United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, and the Italian Air Force and Navy also will operate the STOVL variant, which will be the world’s first STOVL aircraft to combine stealth with supersonic speed.
> 
> The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter. Three F-35 variants derived from a common design, developed together and using the same sustainment infrastructure worldwide, will replace at least 13 types of aircraft for 11 nations initially, making the Lightning II the most cost-effective fighter program in history.
> 
> Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 with its principal industrial partners, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems. Two separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the Pratt & Whitney F135 and the GE Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team F136.
> 
> Workers at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, prepare the fourth F-35 Lightning II for rollout from the factory on Aug. 16. The F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant has entered a period of systems checks before its first flight in early 2009.
> 
> http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/p...5rollout4.html


----------



## belka

Kinda related to a possible JSF purchase from Canada.

*New Aussie Fighter Clubbed Like Baby Seal * 



> The federal opposition has dismissed new doubts about the capacity of the multi-billion dollar Joint Strike Fighter to perform against jets used by Russia and China.
> 
> - JSFs 'beaten' in simulated dogfights
> - Australia likely to pay $16 billion
> - War games 'not real life'
> 
> The JSF jets, for which Australia is likely to pay $16 billion, were comprehensively beaten in highly classified simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighter aircraft, it has been reported.
> 
> The war games, conducted at Hawaii's Hickam airbase last month, were witnessed by at least four RAAF personnel and a member of Australia's peak military spy agency, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, The West Australian said.
> 
> Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin said he was taking "with a grain of salt" the validity of the report. "This is based on a computer game, computer modelling of the aircraft," he told Sky News.
> 
> "This is not real life."
> 
> Senator Minchin said he had a classified briefing on the JSF from its US manufacturer Lockheed-Martin which had promoted the aircraft as the most advanced jet fighter ever.
> 
> "I can't really say much about it, but this is a phenomenal aircraft.
> 
> "As our chief of defence Angus Houston has said this is a most extraordinary aircraft, it is the right aircraft for Australia."
> 
> The multi-purpose fighter would be the backbone of the United States military, Senator Minchin said.
> 
> "We are fortunate to be in it and the government should move to make the decision to acquire it."
> 
> WA Liberal backbencher Dennis Jensen said he had spoken to a third party with knowledge of the final classified test results who had claimed the JSF had been clubbed like baby seals by the simulated Sukhois, The West Australian reported.
> 
> He said the government should demand that the US Government sell it the F-22 which was already in operation instead of the JSF.
> 
> A response was been sought from the government.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/national/new-aussie-fighter-clubbed-like-seal-20080911-4e6b.html



Yeah these are simulated war games and nothing more than political BS. 

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2299.html

Possible export of F-22's in 2015?


----------



## jimderfuhrer

F-35 is a waste of money...canada had sadly time with single engine aircraft. This is for why since end of world war two canada has only twin engine aircraft passed CF-100 to CF-188. The F-35 is a single seat/engine aircraft, with less possible distance and less speed than CF-188. The F-35 is aircraft for carrier aircraft ( Short range  jet multi-role aircraft ) , they only build a version for Canada and Turkey just because our two country spending more 400 Million on this project. And anyway canada spending lot of money on this project for finaly said CF are not ready for buying F-35 for 2011 (like Stephen Harper supposed to do). They modernised CF-18 in Phase II for still used this awesome fighter in 2017-2018. 

PS : I'm very sorry about my miserable english ( I'm from quebec )


----------



## geo

(If you had trouble expressing yourself in english, you mighta thought of posting it in french - no one would have flamed you for it.)

Canada has had extensive experience with single engine aircraft..... CF100, CF104, CF5s - so adding a F35 wouldn't be out of the question.

Canada got into the F35 program to participate in the R&D of the aircraft.  ERven if we don't buy a single aircraft, the R&D sharing will be worth it's weight in gold... it is not a 400MM$ boondoggle.


----------



## SupersonicMax

geo, the Canuck and the Freedom Fighters are both twin engines.  The only jets we had/have that have 1 engine (AFAICR) are the 104, the Tutor and the Hawk.

Edit:  I forgot the T-Bird


----------



## geo

whups..... smacking myself in head .... CF5 lawn ornament outside my office window.

older single F86 sabre


----------



## belka

jimderfuhrer said:
			
		

> F-35 is a waste of money...canada had sadly time with single engine aircraft. This is for why since end of world war two canada has only twin engine aircraft passed CF-100 to CF-188. The F-35 is a single seat/engine aircraft, with less possible distance and less speed than CF-188. The F-35 is aircraft for carrier aircraft ( Short range  jet multi-role aircraft ) , they only build a version for Canada and Turkey just because our two country spending more 400 Million on this project. And anyway canada spending lot of money on this project for finaly said CF are not ready for buying F-35 for 2011 (like Stephen Harper supposed to do). They modernised CF-18 in Phase II for still used this awesome fighter in 2017-2018.
> 
> PS : I'm very sorry about my miserable english ( I'm from quebec )



Your English is still better than my French.

I agree on the F-35 part though. If we are to get a single-engine replacement, the new F-16 would suit that role nicely for alot less money. 2011 is the date when Canada will announce a replacement, with airframes arriving in 2018, if that ever happens. I have a feeling that the CF-18's will (should) be on pedestals by the time the new fighters arrive.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Does the US plan to continue with F16 production past 2011?


----------



## aesop081

jimderfuhrer said:
			
		

> they only build a version for Canada and Turkey just because our two country spending more 400 Million on this project.



You forgot the USAF in your little speech. So they are not building the land-based CTOL version just for us. There are many other European nations that are going to replace their (mostly F-16s) with the F-35.

I'm not a fan of the F-35 myself but , at least, get your facts straight.


----------



## SupersonicMax

The current production version is the Block 50/52.  I'm sure if they have enough order to justify keeping the production alive they will. 

IMHO, the Grippen would be a better platform than the F-16 in term of single engine.  However, I'd be surprised to see a single engine as the new fighter if the F-35 isn't choosen.  I'd see the Super Hornet before the F-16.


----------



## aesop081

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The current production version is the Block 50/52.



I have seen the new F-16 block 52 up close and its pretty impressive indeed.



> IMHO, the Grippen would be a better platform than the F-16 in term of single engine.



The new Grippen NG is even better that the current Grippen. I would rather see us fly that than the F-35. The latest production blocks of the Typhoon are pretty attractive as well.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Yup, the Eurofigter is attractive, but it comes with a price.  Obviously, I was talking about the Grippen NG.  I've seen them upclose and they are quite a machine.  

As for the Block 52, yup, very impressive!


----------



## belka

I know it's still early, but I'm kinda surprised there hasn't been more talk about this. At a briefing at work we got info that the replacements will be F-35's, from some General in 1CAD. I wonder if the replacement process will be similar to what the CF-18 was or will we just negotiate for the F-35. 

You have to remember that if we get a European product, it means that all the training e.i. maintence and aircrew will probably have to be somewhere in Europe for the first phase. That adds cost to an already expensive bill.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I'm sure it would be cheaper to get 100 Grippens and initial training in Europe than get 60 JSF...  The planned replacement is the F-35, however, there was no competition for the new fighter yet.  And I do believe you need some sort of bid to obtain something in the CF...


----------



## belka

Sukhoi should offer their fancy SU-30MKI, they are working extremely well for India and have an excellent platform. Not saying we will ever order a Russian fighter, but it would make things interesting.  >


----------



## SeaKingTacco

...and once again, an Army.ca thread spirals into "buy Russian kit" madness... :


----------



## George Wallace

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ...and once again, an Army.ca thread spirals into "buy Russian kit" madness... :



As so often happens when "amateurs" become involved.   :


----------



## belka

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ...and once again, an Army.ca thread spirals into "buy Russian kit" madness... :



Why, because everyone considers Russian kit inferior?  :


----------



## George Wallace

NINJA said:
			
		

> Why, because everyone considers Russian kit inferior?  :








NO Brainiac !

Because one does not buy military equipment from an enemy.

 :


----------



## SupersonicMax

Who said they were inferior?  The russian kit is just not suited for our needs (especially when comes time to deploy.. Not many NATO allies use Russian Kit).  We have trouble importing an airplane from UK on different aspects, nevermind importing from russia...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Well, in a word, Yes.

I will not participate in another 10 page death spiral of a thread, leading to a lock, while we argue the same stupid points that have come up about 100 times already in threads involving tanks, ships, submarines, helicopters, transport aircraft and fighters where somebody is adamant, against all logic and evidence from people with expertise, that Russian kit is "right" for Canada.

Mods- just lock this one now- we will all save a bunch of time.


----------

