The Eagle
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2015
- Messages
- 24,239
- Reaction score
- 258
- Country
- Location
Hmmmm got it
Canada May Dump F-35, Open New Competition
- Thread starter Zarvan
- Start date
Taygibay
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 3,392
- Reaction score
- 29
- Country
- Location
Too small! Real stealth, the all aspects kind used in so-called US 5th requires broader shapes than
the conventional aircraft design, more material per linear foot of jet.
The added weight of new equipment would disfigure the jet indicating the necessity for a new product.
Think of the rear stab eq. case on a F-16A slender based but with a bulbous fat azz section.
By the C, that fin base was more extensive and more blocky, hiding that in its elongated form.
Then came the dorsal fin of the Block 50s and beyond, so ungainly that it barely matters if you add
the equally homely conformal tanks.
What was one of the most elegant designs in aviation history is laden with ugly and looks like a stud
going to the prom with 3 fat girls.
Saying this aesthetically as Marcel Dassault's famous line : Ce qui est beau vole bien …
What's pretty flies well - reveals the weight to shape ratio minimum involved in real stealth.
For that reason, at the level of slender jets, electronics are the best stealth option and it so happens
that it's exactly what is in that widening foot of vertical stabilizer / dorsal fin / hump. *
The upper limit on the Falcon has been reached; it's not an Eagle?
* Apart from APU.
Not on Canada! Americans are an Island-Nation people. Upon the shock of 9-11, they closed up
quicker than an oyster. The restrictions apply to all, so either also to friends or they have none.
It actually goes reverse : special favors were negative as in rules for those not our friends.
They don't, that's the whole point. Canada needs a dual engined NATO interoperable fighter with long legs.
Any good up-to-date one will do.
Don't throw supreme stupidity at people like that; it splatters back.
The present price of the F-35 is not variable as Canada had decided on a fixed package deal.
The Liberals will start with the present amount and open a competition much below that.
The possible candidates are then the F-18 EF +_ Growlers, the F-15 SE for the Great White North
coverage ability or Rafale.
The Typhoon should compete but is hindered somewhat by the fact that only the Brits are serious in
developing it to its full potential, which in a consortium set-up really matters especially for exports.
No single engine jet can compete. They won't win. MilAvia history teaches us that Canada choose the
CF_18 over the Mirage 2000 despite test pilots loving flying the latter ( Canada has a mud-flyer base )
due to fear of engine problems or of a pilot forced to walk back 2000 miles to base cause a goose wanted a hot hug.
( The excuse at the time was delivery schedule but in the know folks heard a General comment )
You'd have a better chance with the brilliant MiG-31 and factual MiG-35 suggestions.
Now Trudeau has upheld his first promise of halting the strikes in the M_E within hours of the election.
Chances are he will hold the fighter one too. And mind you, he also said he would fix the sea-snake saga
of the Surface Combatant program to replenish the Royal Canadian Navy.
That program is navigating so far about like those subs bought a while back : on fire and/or sinking.
There's a proposal to adapt a used tanker or cargo as temporary fleet logistics vessel since the real one
broke down roughly a year ago on its way to an exercise with friends in the low western Pacific, having
to take refuge in Hawaii. HMCS PROTECTEUR - Military Ops: current position and details | MMSI 316146000, Callsign CYTV | Registered in Canada - AIS Marine Traffic
Read this excellent primer on Canada and the seas at war :
The sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans.ca
So forget the conditional mates, there will be a fighter competition …
for the US products to lose for G-P reasons ... save the one that already did.
Tay.
Last edited:
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Don't throw supreme stupidity at people like that; it splatters back.
The present price of the F-35 is not variable as Canada had decided on a fixed package deal.
The Liberals will start with the present amount and open a competition much below that.
The possible candidates are then the F-18 EF +_ Growlers, the F-15 SE for the Great White North
coverage ability or Rafale.
The Typhoon should compete but is hindered somewhat by the fact that only the Brits are serious in
developing it to its full potential, which in a consortium set-up really matters especially for exports.
No single engine jet can compete. They won't win. MilAvia history teaches us that Canada choose the
CF_18 over the Mirage 2000 despite test pilots loving flying the latter ( Canada has a mud-flyer base )
due to fear of engine problems or of a pilot forced to walk back 2000 miles to base cause a goose wanted a hot hug.
( The excuse at the time was delivery schedule but in the know folks heard a General comment )
You'd have a better chance with the brilliant MiG-31 and factual MiG-35 suggestions.
Now Trudeau has upheld his first promise of halting the strikes in the M_E within hours of the election.
Chances are he will hold the fighter one too. And mind you, he also said he would fix the sea-snake saga
of the Surface Combatant program to replenish the Royal Canadian Navy.
That program is navigating so far about like those subs bought a while back : on fire and/or sinking.
There's a proposal to adapt a used tanker or cargo as temporary fleet logistics vessel since the real one
broke down roughly a year ago on its way to an exercise with friends in the low western Pacific, having
to take refuge in Hawaii. HMCS PROTECTEUR - Military Ops: current position and details | MMSI 316146000, Callsign CYTV | Registered in Canada - AIS Marine Traffic
Read this excellent primer on Canada and the seas at war :
The sinking of the Canadian Navy - Macleans.ca
So forget the conditional mates, there will be a fighter competition …
for the US products to lose for G-P reasons ... save the one that already did.
Tay.
If Canada puts a double engine requirement on their test then yea continuing with the F-18 is most likely, but then what will Canada do in 3 years when the line is shutting down? What about missing out on continuing contracts for Manufacturing?
By that point the f-35 will be a mature fighter, All these negative articles will be forgotten, just like every previous fighter program. Canada will buy it 10 years late and under less beneficial terms.
Hopefully now that Trudeau is PM he will get to see the actual classified facts and be briefed by the military on those facts and make the correct decision, but it isn't the first time a politician has pandered.
Last edited:
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
@anon45
I didn't know that American's consider a description of a state, a name calling...
You are jumping to conclusion and being ignorant, again! Stop with the denial!
Proper description of your mental condition:
Willful ignorance - RationalWiki
Gripen C/D(not Gripen E aka NG)
Saab Gripen vs F-35 « Defense Issues
Comparing modern Western fighters « Defense Issues
Missile and aircraft turn performance « Defense Issues
F-35 Test Pilot Confirms: F-35 Is Useless In Dogfights, Can’t Beat the F-16 « Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog
F-35 Test Pilot Confirms: F-35 Is Useless In Dogfights, Can’t Beat the F-16 « Defense Issues
F-16 vs F-35 « Defense Issues
Also where is it written in the link you submitted that Gripen NG price is 150 million US dollars?
Sweden, Brazil Pursue Deeper Cooperation With $4.7B Gripen NG Deal
The deal is 4.7 not 5.4 billion USD and in the deal includes local production, assembly, training of pilots and engineers plus development costs for Sea Gripen for aircraft carriers.
In 2013 Gripen NG estimation with VAT is 100 million USD compared to F35A 184 and F35B 292 million USD with VAT,but without engine...
Actual F-35 unit cost « Defense Issues
Gripen C is 53 million USD with VAT...
Modern aircraft flyaway costs « Defense Issues
Dassault Rafale vs F-35 « Defense Issues
F-35 pilots under 200 pounds 'are at a serious-level risk' of fatal whiplash if they have to eject - Business Insider
Gripen E can supercruise at 1.25 mach while F-35 can not!
The Replacements: Canada's Future Fighters, Gripen - Part 4 | Vanguard Magazine
Anyway... Gripen uses the same engine as Super Hornet, but tweaked and improved thus Canadian Airforce already knows maintainance of the engine and has the infrastructure for it.
hey Yugo, here is some reading up on picard (with rafale as the topic)
F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale - F-35 versus XYZ
Another one taking to task arguments of higher flight hour costs. (though in a rafale thread.)
F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale - F-35 versus XYZ
c
Here is something alot more scathing.. Conversation between posters tchaou and XanderCrews
For the Gripen NG... here F-35A versus Saab Grippen NG - F-35 versus XYZ
Eurofighter: F-35 will have the advantage of being VLO and combined with its sensor fusion package will be have a huge advantage over 4-4.5 gen non-stealth aircraft for attacking.
This advantage being first look, first shoot.
Last edited:
Indus Falcon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2011
- Messages
- 6,910
- Reaction score
- 107
- Country
- Location
anon45
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,212
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Canada’s F-35: yeah but no but… yeah?
Canada’s F-35: yeah but no but… yeah?
2 Nov 2015|Andrew Davies
Print This Post
For a number of reasons, it wasn’t surprising to see Canada’s incoming government announce its intention of revisiting the former government’s decision to buy the F-35A Joint Strike fighter for the Royal Canadian Air Force. It’s not academic for Australia—if Canada decides to pull out, it could cost Australia and other partners about a million dollars extra per aircraft as economies of scale are reduced, or about A$100 million in total for the RAAF’s fleet of 72.
As in Australia, the proposed Canadian F-35 purchase has been controversial and has found itself repeatedly in the papers. Unlike in Australia, the Canadian debate has been cost rather than the capability of the aircraft. And it hasn’t been a debate in the margins: a 2011 Parliamentary Budget Officer report that highlighted the budgetary impacts of both the acquisition and through-life support costs of the F-35 led to a vote of no confidence in the House, and ultimately the dissolution of the then minority conservative government.
It’s no surprise that the cost of the F-35 is problematic for Canada. It’s the world’s second most expensive tactical aircraft after its F-22 stablemate. At a projected flyaway price of US$82 million in 2020, it compares to US$61 million flyaway for a new build Super Hornet (prices in 2015 dollars). Supporters of the F-35 would argue that you get a lot more capability for your money, but that doesn’t help if you’re broke. And when you look at its defence budget, Canada has been heading for the wall for a while now.
As I pointed out in a comparative analysis a few months ago, Canada’s armed forces are uncannily similar to Australia’s in size, while the defence budget is a whopping 40% smaller. Even if our northern mates are doing things smarter than we are, that’s an implausibly large amount of efficiency to find. It’s more likely that they’re expending a much greater proportion of their budget on keeping the extant forces going than we are. That’s OK until it comes time to recapitalise major assets, when you’re faced with the option of letting capabilities go or finding extra money.
Canada may have already made some tacit decisions. I’ve talked with Canadian civilian and military defence folks about the replacement of our Collins and their Upholder class submarines. The timing and requirements of the two countries actually mesh quite nicely (even if Canada extends the life of its boats it could still work), and a collaborative approach would make good sense, giving both sides some economy of scale. The response is usually an uncomfortable silence—the inference I draw being that Canada isn’t planning another generation of submarines.
But in the F-35 case it’s far from clear what options Canada has. It could go the New Zealand path of 0% fast jet force, confident that its border with the US would let it avoid being ‘100% there for the taking‘, but that would abrogate its responsibility for northern air defence and weaken it substantially as a NATO contributor. So eventually it’s going to have to replace its 1980s vintage Hornets with something. The problem is that the something won’t cost that much less than the F-35, will offer less capability and—perhaps worst of all from a Canadian point of view—might require earlier expenditure.
The most likely alternative for Canada is the Super Hornet. European options would require new supply chains and integration of new weapons into the inventory. As Australia found, the transition from Hornet to Super Hornet is easy, with training and logistics being similar enough to significantly reduce overheads. Canada’s also attracted to the Super Hornet because of its twin engines. There was a school of thought in Australia that we need two engines to operate safely over water; the Canadian equivalent is the vast northern expanses. The argument fails to appreciate the reliability of modern American jet engines (it might make sense if you had to use Chinese engines) but it still seems to have some currency up north.
But the Super Hornet production line mightn’t be open much longer, and Canada would have to buy new aircraft now, as opposed to sometime next decade as it currently plans. It would probably pay more for the aircraft than the USN did when production was in full swing. So innet present value terms, a Super Hornet buy mightn’t be the value proposition it first appears.
The list of pros for the F-35 also includes the preference of the RCAF for the highest tech platform it can get (air forces are like that) and Canadian industry involvement in the program—always politically tough to walk away from. Canada will get some work regardless, but future opportunities for construction and support work would be highly constrained. I wouldn’t mind a small wager that Canada eventually settles on the F-35 after all.
Canada’s F-35: yeah but no but… yeah?
2 Nov 2015|Andrew Davies
Print This Post
For a number of reasons, it wasn’t surprising to see Canada’s incoming government announce its intention of revisiting the former government’s decision to buy the F-35A Joint Strike fighter for the Royal Canadian Air Force. It’s not academic for Australia—if Canada decides to pull out, it could cost Australia and other partners about a million dollars extra per aircraft as economies of scale are reduced, or about A$100 million in total for the RAAF’s fleet of 72.
As in Australia, the proposed Canadian F-35 purchase has been controversial and has found itself repeatedly in the papers. Unlike in Australia, the Canadian debate has been cost rather than the capability of the aircraft. And it hasn’t been a debate in the margins: a 2011 Parliamentary Budget Officer report that highlighted the budgetary impacts of both the acquisition and through-life support costs of the F-35 led to a vote of no confidence in the House, and ultimately the dissolution of the then minority conservative government.
It’s no surprise that the cost of the F-35 is problematic for Canada. It’s the world’s second most expensive tactical aircraft after its F-22 stablemate. At a projected flyaway price of US$82 million in 2020, it compares to US$61 million flyaway for a new build Super Hornet (prices in 2015 dollars). Supporters of the F-35 would argue that you get a lot more capability for your money, but that doesn’t help if you’re broke. And when you look at its defence budget, Canada has been heading for the wall for a while now.
As I pointed out in a comparative analysis a few months ago, Canada’s armed forces are uncannily similar to Australia’s in size, while the defence budget is a whopping 40% smaller. Even if our northern mates are doing things smarter than we are, that’s an implausibly large amount of efficiency to find. It’s more likely that they’re expending a much greater proportion of their budget on keeping the extant forces going than we are. That’s OK until it comes time to recapitalise major assets, when you’re faced with the option of letting capabilities go or finding extra money.
Canada may have already made some tacit decisions. I’ve talked with Canadian civilian and military defence folks about the replacement of our Collins and their Upholder class submarines. The timing and requirements of the two countries actually mesh quite nicely (even if Canada extends the life of its boats it could still work), and a collaborative approach would make good sense, giving both sides some economy of scale. The response is usually an uncomfortable silence—the inference I draw being that Canada isn’t planning another generation of submarines.
But in the F-35 case it’s far from clear what options Canada has. It could go the New Zealand path of 0% fast jet force, confident that its border with the US would let it avoid being ‘100% there for the taking‘, but that would abrogate its responsibility for northern air defence and weaken it substantially as a NATO contributor. So eventually it’s going to have to replace its 1980s vintage Hornets with something. The problem is that the something won’t cost that much less than the F-35, will offer less capability and—perhaps worst of all from a Canadian point of view—might require earlier expenditure.
The most likely alternative for Canada is the Super Hornet. European options would require new supply chains and integration of new weapons into the inventory. As Australia found, the transition from Hornet to Super Hornet is easy, with training and logistics being similar enough to significantly reduce overheads. Canada’s also attracted to the Super Hornet because of its twin engines. There was a school of thought in Australia that we need two engines to operate safely over water; the Canadian equivalent is the vast northern expanses. The argument fails to appreciate the reliability of modern American jet engines (it might make sense if you had to use Chinese engines) but it still seems to have some currency up north.
But the Super Hornet production line mightn’t be open much longer, and Canada would have to buy new aircraft now, as opposed to sometime next decade as it currently plans. It would probably pay more for the aircraft than the USN did when production was in full swing. So innet present value terms, a Super Hornet buy mightn’t be the value proposition it first appears.
The list of pros for the F-35 also includes the preference of the RCAF for the highest tech platform it can get (air forces are like that) and Canadian industry involvement in the program—always politically tough to walk away from. Canada will get some work regardless, but future opportunities for construction and support work would be highly constrained. I wouldn’t mind a small wager that Canada eventually settles on the F-35 after all.
Similar threads
