The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[Edward Campbell]

I think the point is that Prime Minister Trudeau, if he wants to keep his "Zero F-35 fighters" promise, does have credible options ... he's not just talking through his hair hat.

 

[Good2Golf]

So, $107M each huh.

Not a relevant figure, Max, as we don't know what is included in that $3B price tag.  Per aircraft costs are always a 'loaded' figure, and highly dependant on what's included in program costs.

If one were to read the Government news releases on the CH-147F acquisition cost of $2.2B (aircraft, some parts, simulators and some infrastructure) and divide by 15 aircraft, arithmetic would postulate that each Chinook costs $147M...makes Super Hornets and even F-35 look downright economical. 

:2c:

G2G

 

[a_majoor]

Well, here is a solution that should satisfy everyone  >

 

[dapaterson]

What ahs rarely been discussed is the lack of control Canda would have if we purchased F35s.  American control over software means that F35 users will be surrendering freedom of action; without US approval, missions will not be flown.

How much is national sovereignty worth?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What ahs rarely been discussed is the lack of control Canda would have if we purchased F35s.  American control over software means that F35 users will be surrendering freedom of action; without US approval, missions will not be flown.

How much is national sovereignty worth?

Not very much. Canada has choosen for decades to scrimp on defence and take an essentially free ride on the US taxpayer. Why should we complain when they want to call the shots?

 

[SupersonicMax]

What ahs rarely been discussed is the lack of control Canda would have if we purchased F35s.  American control over software means that F35 users will be surrendering freedom of action; without US approval, missions will not be flown.

How much is national sovereignty worth?

I am pretty sure we can't bring our Hornets (US tech) anywhere we want right now to do whatever we want as it stands.

While we have some control over our software, it is largely based on the US version of the F-18 software with some Canadian improvements.

 

[PuckChaser]

What ahs rarely been discussed is the lack of control Canda would have if we purchased F35s.  American control over software means that F35 users will be surrendering freedom of action; without US approval, missions will not be flown.

How much is national sovereignty worth?

I can think of literally hundreds of other systems that rely solely on US R&D as we simply don't have the capacity to build equivalents or would be playing 20 years of scientific catchup. Major ones off the top of my head from the signals world is tactical radio equipment and encryption devices. There's a reason we're leaning on buying everything from Harris, look at the gongshow the TCCCS system was when we did it ourselves.

 

[Kirkhill]

I can think of literally hundreds of other systems that rely solely on US R&D as we simply don't have the capacity to build equivalents or would be playing 20 years of scientific catchup. Major ones off the top of my head from the signals world is tactical radio equipment and encryption devices. There's a reason we're leaning on buying everything from Harris, look at the gongshow the TCCCS system was when we did it ourselves.

And if it is isn't American caveats then it is British, Swedish or French caveats.  TANSTAAFL.  The only weapons we control are the ones we have in hand - until they break.

 

[NavyShooter]

Well, here is a solution that should satisfy everyone  >

We roll back to the CF-5 or Scorpion Jet option again?

;-)

http://www.scorpionjet.com/

 

[MarkOttawa]

Quote from: dapaterson on Today at 07:52:00

What has rarely been discussed is the lack of control Canda would have if we purchased F35s.  American control over software means that F35 users will be surrendering freedom of action; without US approval, missions will not be flown.

How much is national sovereignty worth?

 

At AvWeek Oct.15:

F-35 Customers Funding U.S.-Based Software Update Labs

Foreign air forces using the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are being compelled to build and fund $150 million software laboratories, based in the U.S. and almost 50% staffed by U.S. personnel, that generate data crucial to the fighter’s ability to identify new radio-frequency threats.

This regime is more stringent and far-reaching than earlier U.S. fighter export deals. Those usually withheld key software — known as source code — from the customer, but in most cases allowed local users to manage their own “threat libraries,” data that allowed the electronic warfare (EW) system to identify radio-frequency threats, with in-country, locally staffed facilities.

For the U.K. in particular, the reliance on U.S.-located laboratories looks like a pullback from its earlier position. In 2006, concern over access to JSF technology reached the national leadership level, and prompted a declaration, by U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, that “both governments agree that the U.K. will have the ability to successfully operate, upgrade, employ, and maintain the JSF such that the U.K. retains operational sovereignty over the aircraft.”

That promise seemingly contrasts with the severe limits now being imposed on non-U.S. access to the system.

Concerns about the lack of sovereignty and access to the core system — since customer laboratory personnel will not be co-located with operating units — are being voiced. A retired senior officer with the Royal Air Force comments that “the non-U.S. operators are going to have to take a very great deal on trust. Further, ‘rubbish in – rubbish out’ is still going to hold sway and I doubt that the non-U.S. customers will be able to check what is going in.” Security arrangements “seem to go a lot further and deeper” than on earlier platforms, he says...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-customers-funding-us-based-software-update-labs

Read on.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Kilo_302]

Not an expert by any stretch, but I still haven't seen a viable argument as to why a single engine aircraft would be considered suitable for the NORAD mission.

Most of the air forces considering the JSF are either replacing the F-16 (with smaller geographical areas to cover) or are running mixed fleets (RAF, IAF etc). I understand engine technology has advanced since the 70s, and the F-35 engine is apparently far more resistant to bird strikes etc, but the foreign object debris risk is almost non-existent once you're at altitude, and is really only a consideration during take-off and landing (when you don't need to worry about being rescued anyways).

Even if the engine is 99.99% reliable, wouldn't having a single point of failure become a problem over the lifetime of the aircraft given the vast distances being flown?

 

[dapaterson]

I suspect the CAF has adequate data to determine whether a single engine has an adequate safety margin.

While I have many critiques of the F35; its engine (or lack of an "s" at the end) is not one of them.

 

[Loachman]

As I have said here before: "I've got over 4000 hours on single-engined helicopters by day and night, fair weather or foul, over large expanses of wilderness, water, alligator-infested swamp, major cities, and Liberal-held ridings, and not once, ever, did I see that as a problem".

People were worried when airliners went from four engines to three and two. Modern engines are much more reliable. And even four engines are no guarantee against death when one's AWACS runs through a flock of geese on take-off.

 

[McG]

Not an expert by any stretch, but I still haven't seen a viable argument as to why a single engine aircraft would be considered suitable for the NORAD mission.

Well I still haven't seen a viable argument as to why a single engine aircraft would not be considered suitable for the NORAD mission, and I do know a bit about RAMD.

 

[Good2Golf]

Not an expert by any stretch, but I still haven't seen a viable argument as to why a single engine aircraft would be considered suitable for the NORAD mission.

Single engine aircraft were always acceptable for the NORAD mission...even back in the 60's and 70's.

 

[Kirkhill]

Or these?

 

[winnipegoo7]

Or these?

Starfighter buff here.

I think the twin engine Voodoo was our NORAD interceptor and that the Starfighter was with NATO in Europe in a nuclear bomber / recce / ground attack role. I know some Starfighters were used for training in Canada, but I think the operational ones were in Europe. Do you have a reference of Starfighters operating with NORAD?

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.norad.mil/Portals/29/Documents/A%20Brief%20History%20of%20NORAD%20(current%20as%20of%20March%202014).pdf

Page 40

Jan 58 to Sep 60
Apr 63 to Dec 69

Not in Canadian service and not considered ideal by the USAF but they were assigned NORAD missions.

 

[winnipegoo7]

CP

I didn't know that. Thanks.

 

[a_majoor]

What ahs rarely been discussed is the lack of control Canda would have if we purchased F35s.  American control over software means that F35 users will be surrendering freedom of action; without US approval, missions will not be flown.

How much is national sovereignty worth?

Given the sensor fusion and other capabilities of the F-35, allies flying in Gen 4 fighters will essentially be under the command and control of the F-35's anyway, since they will be steering through defences, spotting and assigning targets and doing pretty much all the mission critical stuff anyway. They will essentially be bomb and missile trucks for the Americans to utilize as they see fit (and since they are manned, will be more flexible than a similar fleet of UCAVs doing the same role).