New Fighters

[Kirkhill]

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

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

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

 

[DexOlesa]

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

Money for Nothing

 

[Webgear]

George

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

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

 

[ReneeClaude]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ModlrMike]

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

 

[aesop081]

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

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

Plus, as George has pointed out 

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

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

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

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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

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

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

 

[ReneeClaude]

CDN Aviator first, thank you very much for serving!

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

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

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

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

 

[aesop081]

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

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

 

[ReneeClaude]

Thank you for the clarification CDN Aviator.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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

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

It will be the only way to ensure interoperability 8)

 

[Occam]

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

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

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

 

[Good2Golf]

No, I did not say that. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Regards
G2G

 

[a_majoor]

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

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

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

 

[aesop081]

but there will always be generational differences between aircraft,

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

The CF-18 fleet just had Link 16 installed,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kalatzi]

Used British Subs anyone???

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

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

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

And since the RN unloaded some duds on us

 

[Occam]

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

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

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

News to me.

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

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

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

Broad descriptions, not specifics.

 

[FoverF]

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

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

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


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

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