News   Nov 22, 2024
 779     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 1.4K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 3.4K     8 

F-35 Fighter Jet Purchase

With the CAD$ dollar collapsing in value, one thinks we should have bought and put aside the budgeted CAD$16 billion into a US$ account when the F-35 was tentatively selected in 2010. Our money will not go as far today.

IMO, we'll still be flying CF-18s without anything new delivered well into Trudeau's second mandate. Imagine if we'd waited (and taken all the complaints from USA, NATO) and bought F-4s to replace the CF-100 - we'd still be flying them today.
 
It is amazing how radical this government is.
I understand Paul Martin started the F35 acquisition and there was continuity with the Harper government. Now we have a government that says they will scrap the F35, but maybe they will delay it. So they create a make believe shortage to buy a new fleet that will hamper us in the future.
I honesty thought they were joking when they first announced this, but it looks like the EH101 helicopter, or used submarine fiasco in the making.
 
For what it's worth, my father is an ex-air force pilot and he thinks the super hornet is a much better option for the needs of the Canadian air force. He believes that the F35 is inferior for arctic defense and far too expensive.
 
Given the likelihood the US will significantly harm our economy with fresh protectionist measures, why would we want to buy the F35? Why would we even think we could afford it? Or any other cripplingly expensive US weapons system, for that matter. Defence procurement should be the first casualty of our new relationship with the US, along with our ready-aye-ready attitude to participating in their various undeclared wars.
 
For what it's worth, my father is an ex-air force pilot and he thinks the super hornet is a much better option for the needs of the Canadian air force. He believes that the F35 is inferior for arctic defense and far too expensive.
I have heard otherwise.
http://ipolitics.ca/2016/11/25/the-super-hornet-buy-doesnt-make-any-sense/
Given the likelihood the US will significantly harm our economy with fresh protectionist measures, why would we want to buy the F35? Why would we even think we could afford it? Or any other cripplingly expensive US weapons system, for that matter. Defence procurement should be the first casualty of our new relationship with the US, along with our ready-aye-ready attitude to participating in their various undeclared wars.
US will likely help our economy with the focus of their government on economy. We can ride their coattails.
 

Yes, my father would agree with the economic premise of the article. With the amount of money we invest in the air force we don't have the resources to support two different types of aircraft. His preference would be to replace all the CF18s with the Super Hornets though. Unfortunately I know next to nothing about military aircraft, so I can't do much more than parrot what he tells me.

My gut feeling is that Trudeau is going to use the F35 as a bargaining chip in the upcoming NAFTA negotiations.
 
Canada will be purchasing 18 Super Hornets to tide it over while engaging in a 5-year bidding process. So I think that counts as "progress", although I don't know when they will actually be delivered.

(I personally think that the Super Hornet is a pretty good choice for Canada in general. It is very doubtful that we will be in a combat situation where low-observability and networkability are crucial, and we already have experience with the Super Hornet.)
The Super Hornets can be used for forward operations with allies, fulfilling the NATO commitments, but meantime, a very good option is to buy surplus US Navy F-18s and refurbish the avionics for compatibility. Ironicially, the older F-18 can outmaneuver the super version, and for most of what we're using them for, their lighter weight in terms of attack capability and payload is an advantage. Of course, range and dwell time can be greatly increased with external tanks, and the F-414 engines are available in a more powerful and reliable variant, the same as the Gripen is using.

The F-35 is still highly problematic for the US, and they're only just now deploying an 'operational' squadron....with all sorts of limitations applied. Ask the US Navy as to what they prefer (off the record, of course).

The acquisition of a limited number of Super Hornets at this time is an astute move. The CF-18 still has a lot of life in it, albeit the airframes will have to be refurbished in a decade.

I see a poster or two is using the situation to lambaste the Libs, including the kitchen sink. Some have short memories, and selective at that:
A long-awaited market analysis into which fighter jet could replace the CF-18s tells the Harper government it can postpone a decision and keep flying the current fleet until 2025, but it will cost roughly $400 million..

The report by a panel of independent experts, part of a package of documents put before the federal cabinet last summer, warns that the aging jets should not be flown much past that date because that would pose an unacceptable, costly risk.

All of the research was done to help the Harper government decide whether to continue with the oft-maligned F-35 stealth fighter program, or hold an open competition.

"No decision has been made on the purchase of replacements for the CF-18s," Public Works Minister Diane Finley told the Commons prior to the release of both the panel report and an annual assessment of the cost of the F-35.

Earlier this year, Defence Minister Rob Nicholson's office announced the CF-18s would get life extension upgrades to keep them flying for another 11 years, but his department released no details on cost or risks.

The panel's analysis, which looked at four different fighter jets, found each is equally capable of meeting Canada's future needs, although both the Harper government and the air force have insisted for years that the F-35 was the only choice to replace the CF-18s.

Unlikely Canada will face state-to-state conflict: report
There is a caveat in the review, however, which suggests the suitability depends on the kind of missions the government expects the planes to perform.

The report suggested it's unlikely Canada will face a state-to-state conflict in the future — one where a cutting-edge jet would make the difference — and even if it did "the government is not obliged to undertake such a mission."

Keeping the current fleet in service and avoiding a political firestorm in the run-up to the next year's election seems to be the Conservative strategy, but the report is explicit on the risks. [...]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extending-cf-18-lifespan-to-cost-about-400-million-report-1.2869532
 
This might be very unconventional, but if you look at all the jet available in the class, Russian Sukhoi is obviously a better choice, except being Russian. Have a look at Su-35. If we escape Russia paranoia and make a rational decision, we might save money and get better fighter jets.

COMPARISON: F/A-18E/F Super Hornet vs. Sukhoi Flanker

The final paragraph of the analysis:
" In conclusion, the Flanker in all current variants kinematically outclasses the Super Hornet in all high performance flight regimes. The only near term advantage the latest Super Hornets have over legacy Flanker variants is in the APG-79 AESA and radar signature reduction features, an advantage which will not last long given highly active ongoing Russian development effort in these areas. The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat. "

If you ask me, I would rather see Canada work with Russia, when it comes to aviation. Who knows, maybe one day our own Bombardier will be manufacturing top fighter jets as a result of cooperation with Russians.

P.S. Just FYI, I am not Russian, just trying to approach the issue without bias. It's pretty tho :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

5130-su35-902zip-9-img-288-23015-41.jpg
 
For what it's worth, my father is an ex-air force pilot and he thinks the super hornet is a much better option for the needs of the Canadian air force. He believes that the F35 is inferior for arctic defense and far too expensive.

Given my previous post, what does your dad say about Russian Sukhoi? So far everybody seem to agree, only Raptor F-22 can beat Su-35 at this point. The rest is inferior. Is it accurate?
 
Given my previous post, what does your dad say about Russian Sukhoi? So far everybody seem to agree, only Raptor F-22 can beat Su-35 at this point. The rest is inferior. Is it accurate?
Even if there weren't immense security issues, the Russians still can't build an engine with the reliability needed for Canada's air-force. RE: Bombardier, they already have Chinese partners building wings and more.
 
Even if there weren't immense security issues, the Russians still can't build an engine with the reliability needed for Canada's air-force. RE: Bombardier, they already have Chinese partners building wings and more.

Sorry, I dont mean to be rude, but do you "think so" or" know it for a fact"? I mean, I am a mechanical engineer and Russian rocket engines are pretty notorious (like RD-170 +). Idk, there are a lot of positive "reviews" online about su35, but it might all be just Russian propaganda tho.
 
Sorry, I dont mean to be rude, but do you "think so" or" know it for a fact"? I mean, I am a mechanical engineer and Russian rocket engines are pretty notorious (like RD-170 +). Idk, there are a lot of positive "reviews" online about su35, but it might all be just Russian propaganda tho.
Who do you know who sources Russia for their aircraft engines? (Besides China?) Metallurgy is not the Eastern Bloc's strength, by any measure, albeit they might produce small batches of high grade steel and alloys for specific tasks:

Russia Curses Its Crappy Engines - StrategyPage
https://www.strategypage.com/dls/.../Russia-Curses-Its-Crappy-Engines-9-21-2014.asp
Sep 21, 2014 - By then Russia hopes to have a replacement aircraft. This announcement ... But without reliable engines it's all for naught. It's the engines that ...
Attrition: India Grows Desperate Over Unreliable Russian Engines
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/20140730.aspx
Jul 30, 2014 - Attrition: India Grows Desperate Over Unreliable Russian Engines ... result in a lost aircraft because the Su-30 can land on one engine. But that ...
India's New Fighters Have Serious Engine Problems The Russian ...
https://warisboring.com/india-s-new-russian-fighters-have-serious-engine-failures-41f...
May 26, 2016 - But it turns out, the twin-engine jets have failure-prone motors. ... HAL is producing the rest at its Nasik facility, where aircraft continue to roll off ...
Russia's air corps is a powerful but fading force | Daily Mail Online
www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/.../Russias-air-corps-powerful-fading-force.html
Mar 20, 2015 - Russian aircraft approach NATO vessels or airspace and practice ... The plane's "engine was unreliable, its radar inadequate, its stealth ...
Why don't Russian aircraft sell as much as their European/American ...
aviation.stackexchange.com/.../why-dont-russian-aircraft-sell-as-much-as-their-europe...
Dec 17, 2015 - Russian (and Soviet) aircraft have a reputation for poor quality, reliability ... no such problems (In fact, the MRJ boasts of 'legendary Japanese reliability') .... They said also that USSR jet engines were more fuel thirsty than their ...
The Truth About the MiG-29 | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine
www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/truth-about-mig-29-180952403/
The U.S. intelligence community first learned of the new Soviet aircraft from ..... Or, you can have platforms like the V-22 that are *inherently* bad for reliability. .... Well, there's the jet engine that they were given by the British, radar, British again.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top