F-22 or F-35

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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