F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Kirkhill]

.... Point being, how many F-35's does one need to take advantage of the sensors and datalink capabilities?

Based on the apparent trend line of the current government I would say as many as we can afford.  They are apparently quite comfortable with sending in spotters for bombs - both special forces and Eye In The Sky CP-140s.  They just don't like dropping actual bombs.

Based on the notion that the CP140 could be launching Harpoons, but isn't then it seems reasonable that the CF-135 could be dropping bombs but won't.

In that case, spending time loitering over enemy airspace calling out targets, some long range optics and a stealthy configuration would likely come in real handy.

 

[PuckChaser]

We should purchase 60-80 of the most advanced F-15's, then lease 24 F-35's, and use the F-35's to communicate with the F-15's making them that much more lethal. Of course with our budget it would be more like 40-60 F-15's and 16 F-35's. Note the difference between lease and purchase. Point being, how many F-35's does one need to take advantage of the sensors and datalink capabilities?

Who are we going to lease from? There aren't going to be surplus F-35s sitting somewhere that no one wants, they're cutting edge. Its not in anyway cheaper to lease, as we still need pilot training, maint training, spare parts, etc, which makes up the bulk of the lifetime cost.

Also, who said the F-15 is going to be able to receive all the data that the F-35 is going to push? Its an aging airframe.

 

[AlexanderM]

Who are we going to lease from? There aren't going to be surplus F-35s sitting somewhere that no one wants, they're cutting edge. Its not in anyway cheaper to lease, as we still need pilot training, maint training, spare parts, etc, which makes up the bulk of the lifetime cost.

Also, who said the F-15 is going to be able to receive all the data that the F-35 is going to push? Its an aging airframe.

We would ask the US to lease in order to get around the no purchase promise, might work for limited numbers.

Here is the info on the F-35 communicating with other fighters.

https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/interoperability

 

[RaceAddict]

Also, who said the F-15 is going to be able to receive all the data that the F-35 is going to push? Its an aging airframe.

Google "Talon HATE". If it allows the F-15 to receive data from the F-22, one would assume it could work similarly with the F-35.

 

[PuckChaser]

Google "Talon HATE". If it allows the F-15 to receive data from the F-22, one would assume it could work similarly with the F-35.

You can't assume anything when you're dealing with technology. Either its designed to do it, or its not. Someone has to pay the software developers to make it work.

The US is also in a budget crunch, they're not likely going to pay for aircraft and then lease them to us, especially if we're not playing nice with the war against ISIL. Why do us a favour when we're backing down at the fight?

 

[AlexanderM]

We would ask the US to lease in order to get around the no purchase promise, might work for limited numbers.

Here is the info on the F-35 communicating with other fighters.

https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/interoperability

The F-35 is already designed to communicate with other fighters, see link above. If we purchase new F-15's or F-18's they will be able to communicate with the F-35, then it's a matter of how many quarterbacks do we need. I doubt the US would even blink at leasing us a small number and it may even keep us in the full program, especially if we are purchasing other US fighters.

 

[PuckChaser]

The F-35 is already designed to communicate with other fighters, see link above. If we purchase new F-15's or F-18's they will be able to communicate with the F-35, then it's a matter of how many quarterbacks do we need. I doubt the US would even blink at leasing us a small number and it may even keep us in the full program, especially if we are purchasing other US fighters.

You're proposing a split fleet, which is not necessarily cheaper, nor does it solve any issues. Fighter aircraft that we're going to want to keep around for the next 40 years are expensive, regardless of what we buy. The new Government of Canada is about to find that out.

 

[Loachman]

CF-135

It won't be designated that. The number's already been used.

We would ask the US to lease in order to get around the no purchase promise, might work for limited numbers.

What is your perceived advantage to leasing?

If we have a government unwilling to purchasing them, why would they lease them?

And, as has been pointed out many, many times, including again just minutes ago, two small fleets are way more expensive and offer no advantages.

 

[AlexanderM]

If we have a government unwilling to purchasing them, why would they lease them?

And, as has been pointed out many, many times, including again just minutes ago, two small fleets are way more expensive and offer no advantages.

The government keeps it's promise not to purchase.

It has been pointed out many, many times that the F-35 has sensors and datalink capabilities that are a huge advantage, having a few to act as quarterback would provide that advantage. The upkeep would be included in a lease agreement, so the costs would be spelled out.

The other option would be to have the US keep some F-35's at Cold Lake, as it often has aircraft stationed there, I imagine it could be done as part of the joint defense under NORAD.

 

[Loachman]

The government keeps it's promise not to purchase.

R - i - i - i - i - i - i - i - i - i - i - i - i - i - i - i - i - g - h - t ...

having a few to act as quarterback would provide that advantage.

Just buy as many as we need without messing around. Multiple microfleets is a double-plus ungood thing.

The government keeps it's promise not to purchase.

It has been pointed out many, many times that the F-35 has sensors and datalink capabilities that are a huge advantage, having a The upkeep would be included in a lease agreement

And billed to ...?

There are no savings to be had. The lessor is going to make a profit. Where is the advantage to us?

The lessor would have to make a huge initial investment and endure a long wait before beginning to show a profit and considerable risk. Why would anybody do that?

Just buy as many as we need without messing around.

have the US keep some F-35's at Cold Lake

Yes, they always take such orders from us.

as it often has aircraft stationed there

Nope.

Visitors and exercise participants. None are "stationed" there.

Just buy as many as we need without messing around.

 

[AlexanderM]

The government has stated that it isn't going to "purchase" the F-35, yet it has capabilities that are very desirable, so it's an issue of trying to find creative ways to get that capability. If it isn't going to work then it isn't going to work, oh well.

 

[PuckChaser]

have the US keep some F-35's at Cold Lake

Why would they do that when they have 2 Squadrons of Raptors in Alaska?

 

[AlexanderM]

Why would they do that when they have 2 Squadrons of Raptors in Alaska?

It's called joint defense under NORAD.

 

[Loachman]

If they're not going to purchase it, they're not going to lease it, either.

They'll buy something different "because it's 2016", or 2017, or 2022, or however long they waffle and dither and drag this out.

One hopes that, now in office and privy to real information previously unavailable to them, there will be at least a flicker of common sense that may take hold and a contract for the F35 rather than some obsolescent/obsolete anything-but-the-EH101 F35 will be signed before the final fully-operational Sea King replacement is delivered.

Having painfully watched and suffered under this Party for several/far-too-many decades, however, I am about as far from optimistic as I could possibly be. There may be a new shiney pony prancing about at the head of the herd, but it's still the same pack of tired old nags still wheezing along behind. The Party has not changed, and I do not expect it to act any differently from its unillustrious past.

 

[PuckChaser]

It's called joint defense under NORAD.

Not sure if you've seen a map lately, but transit time for a F-22 from Elmendorf to Arctic defense and from Cold Lake to Arctic are drastically different.

 

[Loachman]

It's called joint defense under NORAD.

I know what it's called, thank-you-very-much. I've only been in this line of work for forty-three years less a month.

But where is the advantage for them? Why would they waste money - millions of dollars - moving and keeping people, including families, and equipment, plus building and maintaining the necessary expensive facilities, to and in Cold Lake? They have plenty of their own bases in their country already.

Imagination is nice 'n' all, but should be blended with a healthy dose of reality.

Or at least a little...

 

[AlexanderM]

I know what it's called, thank-you-very-much. I've only been in this line of work for forty-three years less a month.

But where is the advantage for them? Why would they waste money - millions of dollars - moving and keeping people, including families, and equipment, plus building and maintaining the necessary expensive facilities, to and in Cold Lake? They have plenty of their own bases in their country already.

Imagination is nice 'n' all, but should be blended with a healthy dose of reality.

Or at least a little...

The advantage to them is to improve or upgrade the defensive capabilities of North America which is the actual goal. Even if they bring in F-35's and conduct exercises with whatever aircraft we purchase, then they could have a contingency plan to move them in should there be a real threat, as even a limited number would improve our capabilities. These types of contingencies have everything to do with reality.

 

[Kirkhill]

Alex:

They can't find the money for their own priorities these days.  They are not going to fund ours. 

This is becoming really simple.  If we want an umbrella we are going to have to pay for it ourselves.

 

[AlexanderM]

Alex:

They can't find the money for their own priorities these days.  They are not going to fund ours. 

This is becoming really simple.  If we want an umbrella we are going to have to pay for it ourselves.

I'll be shocked if we get anything more then some Advanced Super Hornets and who knows how many. And just for the record, I didn't vote for JT, just for this reason.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'll be shocked if we get anything more then some Advanced Super Hornets and who knows how many. And just for the record, I didn't vote for JT, just for this reason.

I'll shocked if we get an umbrella.  It will be less of a shock if we get rained on from a great height.