F-22 or F-35

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

:

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

 

[medaid]

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]

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]

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.