Canadian Federal government cancels F-35 fighter purchase

[Esc8781]

Just how do you claim a prototype more capable than other aircraft.

If US were to make a 6th Gen Prototype and claim all the word that the frame heal itself, with 4-D thrust vectoring, and Eagle eye stealth, what you got is a flying prototype, not the exact aircraft you said you can get.

You can drum up the PAK-FA all you want, in the end of the day, it's still a phototype, there are still chance that parts may not be integrated or even worse, chance that PAK-FA going goin to get cancelled. Dude, 7.5 years is a long time, everything can happen.

Seeing is believing, until i see a PAK-FA Production model, i will withhold my judgment on what can it do. In the meantime, F-35 is a production aircraft, it's not chest thumping on what they can do, THEY CAN DO THIS AND SHOWED IT TO THE WORLD. What people order is the same aircraft on the internet, been used in the USAF and US Marine. What people ordering PAK-FA now is what the phototype can do, not exactly what the production can do. And most of them are on paper, really. So people are only chest thumping the PAK-FA ability, not the other way around.

Anyway, seeing F-35 is already in Lot II production and Lot III Come next year and we will have 100 serving USAF and USMC. F-35 is no longer a dream, it's reality.

Lockheed Martin is astonishing, three F-35s flew in three days. The program is going really smooth now. LRIP VI is coming, and being built in the Lockheed Martin factory.
F-35B completes second airborne weapons separationLightning II executes first drop of a 500-pound GBU-12 | NAVAIR - U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command - Navy and Marine Corps Aviation Research, Development, Acquisition, Test and Evaluation

 

[Esc8781]

Too bad canuh-duh is getting their "better" and "stealthier" Avro-Arrow.

 

[Kompromat]

Aeronaut is it true?

People call it a trillion dollar disaster.

Definitely not an overstatement.

Criticism is good and by Australians you mean that idiot Kopp?

Carl Knoop's word goes high up with the RAAF, and yes he is not the only one out there criticizing the F-35 program. Just take the F-16 designer Pierre Sprey for example.

Aeronaut is it true?

People call it a trillion dollar disaster.

Criticism is good and by Australians you mean that idiot Kopp?

Too bad canuh-duh is getting their "better" and "stealthier" Avro-Arrow.

This was the fastest air craft of its time.

 

[Juice]

are you in your right frame of your mind? PAK-FA has no superiority over F-35? pal,there are tons of information and discussions available on the net, go through them, you shouldn't have even brought up the case of F-35 in comparison with PAK-FA, the only true potential competitor to PAK-FA is F-22.

it's performance is unknown to the bloody posters on this forum, it is very well known to the Russians and Indians who are working closely in developing this aircraft, and Russians will not settle for something that is inferior.

just as a note, there are also tons of discussions and preliminary technical papers with specification available, that have all shown that it is a damn potent aircraft.

Forget PAK-FA, even the 4++ gen SU-35BM is among the best in the world

TIE Fighters are even better...and are employed in the same numbers as the Pak-fa (is that Russian for cheap F-22 knock-off?)

 

[Esc8781]

About Sprey's comments he disliked the F-15. There are many new discoveries. By the way for example if everyone listened to Kelly Johnson there would't be an F-117.

This was the fastest air craft of its time.

But, but, but Canadians are saying they can just make this as stealthy as the F-35.

 

[gambit]

agree with most of the part, however this is also true to most american weapons . neither F-35 nor the f-22 has a overwhelming superiority in all encompassing scenario, it has it's own limits and it's own comfort zone, out of it, it may lose it's advantage. My frustration was with how most Americans continue to downplay and in some cases completely go into denial over the capabilities of its rivals.

it was quiet surprising to know that this man was on his agenda to get F-22.

The highlighted is meaningless. Nothing is perfect for every situations, from cars to airplanes to even YOU the human.

But in a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules but by forcing him to fight under yours.

In this context, a 'rule' is an advantage you have over another, like how the MIG-21 have superior maneuverability over the F-4 and the F-4 have superior range over the -21, and so on back and forth. Same for how the Zero can easily out turn the Thunderbolt but the Thunderbolt is far more rugged and with its 8 .50 cal guns, a short burst that hit can easily shred the Zero, and so on back and forth. Superior maneuverability is a rule. Eight .50 cal machine guns is a rule. Neither fighter have both rules and either pilots intent on besting his opponent must do whatever possible to force his opponent into his rule.

That is why the US have extensive programs like Top Gun, Red Flag, or the Red Eagles: To train our pilots on how to force our opponents to fight under our rules (advantages). Each branch of service have its own 'foreign technology exploitation' division to acquire non-US and non-allied weapons systems to study what kind of rules potential adversaries have over US.

For the USAF...

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 21 May 1951, the United States Air Force established the Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) as a field activity of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence. After ten years, on 1 July 1961, ATIC was inactivated and the Foreign Technology Division (FTD) established.

In 1961, with the formation of the Defense Intelligence Agency and reorganization within the Air Force, ATIC was reassigned to Air Force Systems Command at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland and redesignated the Foreign Technology Division (FTD). The "official" history of HQ NAIC starts with the formation of FTD in 1961. From 1961 to 1991, the Foreign Technology Division was the Air Force's S&TI center of excellence for foreign air and space system.

So no, we do not dismiss others' capabilities but strive to acquire and understand them, as in how those capabilities are achieved and could be used against US.

Remember: In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, but by forcing him to fight under yours.

 

[Alshawi1234]

The talk about purchasing the F-35's has been going for a few years in Canada. The estimated cost of each F-35 is one Billion dollars throughout its lifetime, which is a vast amount of money.

Who the hell would invade Canada anyway? Canada should stick with a less expensive fighter for now, perhaps the Canadian forces could think of buying the F-35 in the future, but not now.

 

[Don Jaguar]

‘It’s panic all over’ as Ottawa rethinks F-35 purchase

The ballooning lifetime cost of the F-35 fighter and Ottawa’s decision to shop around for alternatives is creating panic among Canadian companies betting on supply contracts for the Lockheed Martin plane, sources say.

“It’s panic all over.…They are very concerned at this stage,” a Defence Department source said.

“The numbers are a lot bigger than anybody could imagine,” the source said, adding reports that Ottawa is preparing to back away from its 2010 choice of the F-35 and mull buying another plane are casting doubts on the future of Canada’s involvement with the cutting-edge jet. “The messages are fuzzy enough [from Ottawa] that it looks like they are looking at backing off, delaying it.”

As The Globe and Mail reported Friday, the Harper government is looking for alternatives to the controversial F-35 Lightning fighter jet in the most significant demonstration yet that it is prepared to walk away from its first choice for a new warplane. It is planning to release figures next week showing that the full lifetime costs of the F-35 have surpassed all previous forecasts and now exceed $40-billion.

Canadian companies are able to bid for work supplying the F-35 project because Canada has signed onto a memorandum of understanding with other countries that are pooling efforts to purchase the planes. While the Harper government is considering buying different jets, it has given no indication it is prepared to back out of the memorandum.

Spokespeople for Lockheed Martin refused to comment directly and released a statement that recalled the company’s long association with the Canadian military.

“Lockheed Martin has been a partner with the Canadian Forces for more than 50 years. We continue to look forward to supporting the Government of Canada as they work to provide the Royal Canadian Air Force with a 5th Generation fighter capability for their future security needs,” the company’s statement said.

Maryse Harvey, a spokeswoman for the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, said her group will not make remarks on the matter until the Harper government officially announces its plans. “We won’t comment until an announcement is made,” she said.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Ottawa will explain itself next week on what it is doing to replace Canada’s aging CF-18 fighters. “There’s been a lot of speculation over the last 24 hours … next week there’ll be an open and transparent discussion about the next steps that are going to follow in the CF-18 replacement,” the Defence Minister told reporters.

In an attempt to head off public skepticism that Ottawa’s new “options analysis” is something less than a rigorous rethink of which jet is best, the government is enlisting four independent monitors to vet the process. They will include retired Lieutenant-General Charles Bouchard, who led the NATO mission in Libya, and University of Ottawa professor Philippe Lagassé, an outspoken critic of the jet procurement.

The Conservatives announced in July, 2010, they had decided to buy the F-35 without any competition, and for more than a year and a half, described the jet purchase as a $9-billion acquisition. But in April, 2012, Auditor-General Michael Ferguson revealed it would cost $25-billion for the first 20 years alone.

To demonstrate that they are restarting the procurement process from scratch, Canadian officials will collect information from other plane manufacturers, including U.S.-based Boeing, maker of the Super Hornet, and the consortium behind the Eurofighter Typhoon. They may also contact Sweden’s Saab, manufacturer of the Gripen, and France’s Dassault, maker of the Rafale.

Next week, the government will start this process by releasing National Defence’s updated cost estimates for buying 65 F-35 fighters, and an independent review by KPMG of the forecast price for keeping the jets flying for their full lifespan. The planes are expected to last 36 years, and they should be costed as such, the Auditor-General suggested in his April report.

Sources say the full price of ownership for the F-35 would add up to more than $40-billion when all costs, including fuel and upgrades, are included – or more than $1-billion a year over the F-35s’ lifespan.

‘It’s panic all over’ as Ottawa rethinks F-35 purchase - The Globe and Mail

 

[Luftwaffe]

Too bad canuh-duh is getting their "better" and "stealthier" Avro-Arrow.

I have no doubt Canada can make their own but why spend 5X more money smart move is to get what is available from allies. A design of 1953-55 for an internal bay is much smarter for its time, you should instead appreciate it.

Canada is infested with imperial like politics that made its way down from britain always a good initiative and project is scrapped by politicians.

Its getting funny, lifetime F-35 costs are around $30B for 36 Years that is Yearly $830 million.

 

[Esc8781]

Joke from F-16.net

Now, obviously, we'd have to scale the Arrow down a bit...

Intakes would need to be altered, as would the cockpit to reflect modern requirements such as visibility and stealthiness. The second crew member would be not necessary with modern avionics replacing them.

The internal weapons bay could remain, but the wings aren't exactly designed for stealth or the roles we'd be using it in. Deltas have some negative handling characteristics at certain parts of the flight envelope, so a traditional wing and tailplane (albeit stealthified) would be installed. The fuselage would require reworking to fit the new systems and gear.

Along with the new avionics, a new engine would allow a reduction in maintenance and costs by going with a new, high reliability single engine.

The characteristic white scheme of the Arrow would have to be replaced with a modern grey over gray with low-vis markings, in the interest of aircraft survivability. Twin tails would allow for a lower profile and enhanced manueverability.

Well, there you have it, a whole new Arrow only 25 years late and 5000 % higher than the F-35s would have cost from the factory, but hey, we got to build em ourselves!

 

[Don Jaguar]

Its getting funny, lifetime F-35 costs are around $30B for 36 Years that is Yearly $830 million.

What is the yearly cost of Raptor?

 

[Luftwaffe]

What is the yearly cost of Raptor?

The Costs I mention are for F-35s 65 F-35s over the lifetime [36 Years] would cost $830M Yearly. I read some people are advocating a revamp and to completely introduce a new Generation Avro Arrow that would save Canada some $9B and create many Jobs but that is next to impossible due to corrupt politicians and also due to the fact F-35s are already operational and saves time.

I have no information on F-22 yearly cost.

 

[for truth]

The highlighted is meaningless. Nothing is perfect for every situations, from cars to airplanes to even YOU the human.

But in a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules but by forcing him to fight under yours.

In this context, a 'rule' is an advantage you have over another, like how the MIG-21 have superior maneuverability over the F-4 and the F-4 have superior range over the -21, and so on back and forth. Same for how the Zero can easily out turn the Thunderbolt but the Thunderbolt is far more rugged and with its 8 .50 cal guns, a short burst that hit can easily shred the Zero, and so on back and forth. Superior maneuverability is a rule. Eight .50 cal machine guns is a rule. Neither fighter have both rules and either pilots intent on besting his opponent must do whatever possible to force his opponent into his rule.

That is why the US have extensive programs like Top Gun, Red Flag, or the Red Eagles: To train our pilots on how to force our opponents to fight under our rules (advantages). Each branch of service have its own 'foreign technology exploitation' division to acquire non-US and non-allied weapons systems to study what kind of rules potential adversaries have over US.

For the USAF...

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So no, we do not dismiss others' capabilities but strive to acquire and understand them, as in how those capabilities are achieved and could be used against US.

Remember: In a fight, you win not by fighting under your opponent's rules, but by forcing him to fight under yours.

couldn't agree more,but, what about the element of 'surprise', every air force has some tricks up its sleeves, you can predict, but you cannot define their moves with accuracy.

How does the USAF or any air force prepare for that element of surprise, this element of surprise may not prove to be significant, but, it all depends on how well and best that element of surprise is used.

on the part of 'foreign technology exploitation', this might not be true in just the case of USAF, i believe even the Russians and the Chinese covertly do this, and undertake simulated training under different circumstances to judge the USAF response, to drag out the Americans form their comfort zone .

i remember one of the Chinese generals claiming that they have carried out different simulated exercises to take out american stealth aircraft, and he explicitly made it clear that they have the capability to take on american stealth planes, this might just be a vague statement, on the other hand, it cannot be totally outright rejected.

 

[for truth]

Joke from F-16.net


Intakes would need to be altered, as would the cockpit to reflect modern requirements such as visibility and stealthiness. The second crew member would be not necessary with modern avionics replacing them.

what do you mean by the bold part?
as far as i know, the second crew member is decided on what kind of operation is required form the aircraft, for air superiority, a single crew is good enough, while carrying out other operations like targeting ground locations, you might need a second crew, i might be wrong here, but, this what i read in some articles.

 

[jhungary]

couldn't agree more,but, what about the element of 'surprise', every air force has some tricks up its sleeves, you can predict, but you cannot define their moves with accuracy.

How does the USAF or any air force prepare for that element of surprise, this element of surprise may not prove to be significant, but, it all depends on how well and best that element of surprise is used.

on the part of 'foreign technology exploitation', this might not be true in just the case of USAF, i believe even the Russians and the Chinese covertly do this, and undertake simulated training under different circumstances to judge the USAF response, to drag out the Americans form their comfort zone .

i remember one of the Chinese generals claiming that they have carried out different simulated exercises to take out american stealth aircraft, and he explicitly made it clear that they have the capability to take on american stealth planes, this might just be a vague statement, on the other hand, it cannot be totally outright rejected.

Dude, the problem is, you can claim in "Certain scenario" anyone can kill a F-22 Stealth Aircraft, depend on what scenario you are talking, unless you publicize the combat scenario you are talking about. There are no point discussing the scenario. I can claim, blog standard F-4 in 1970 can defeat PAK-FA in an air-air combat scenario. THe porblem is, how? I believe if you have 10 F-4 vs 1 PAK-FA, the PAK-FA are gonna go down. No point talking about scenario.

Me, i am not an Air Force Trained person, i am an Army Officer, the one thing you need to know about being an Army Officer is you have to know your limit NOW.

The highlighted Part is extremely important, you can say, on paper, you have this and that or whatever you have in 12 hours notice, but in reality, they are all BS, what you have now is what you are going to war to battle with. You cannot depend on what your superior promise you whatever you will get in 4 hours or 4 days. You go to war, you go to battle with all the small arms you carry, all the humvee you drove. That's it. Talk about stuff that happen in future is just simply "Talk". Cause you know, when you are in Deep Shxt, you need those thing you are being promised NOW, not 4 hours from now, not 4 days from now. And there are always reason why you won't get what you promised. That is how Army do it job.

So, say what you want with PAKFA and F-35, one is a Trial Prototype, another one is What you see what you get Production Aircraft, if you want to compare it, wait until PAKFA into production level, then we can talk, otherwise you are buying an aircraft on paper value, not actual value.

what do you mean by the bold part?
as far as i know, the second crew member is decided on what kind of operation is required form the aircraft, for air superiority, a single crew is good enough, while carrying out other operations like targeting ground locations, you might need a second crew, i might be wrong here, but, this what i read in some articles.

F-16 is a multi-role ground attacker aircraft, they don't use second man (WSO), also A-10 is a pure ground attack aircraft, and A-10 is single Seated.