Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

stobiewan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 311
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 12:34
  • Location: UK

Unread post22 Mar 2012, 23:48

duplex wrote:http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Fighter+procurement+unwinding/6334578/story.html

It seems that Canada is going to back out of F-35 .... Again the Super Hornet and the Rafale are the only altenatives.


This single line should tell you how wide of the mark the author's understanding of the technology is:

"The Rafale, like the F-35, comes with radar-evading stealth technology, and, insiders say, could be built almost entirely in Canada. "

Rafale has some very rudimentary signal management applied to it in terms of RAM and some shaping of the inlets etc. It does not have anything like the "radar-evading technology" present in the F35.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6913
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 00:22

Could you imagine the cost of creating an entire assembly process in Canada and how that would jack up the price of the Rafale (which is already more than the F-35 that Canada will be buying).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 01:31

Canada isn't buying a Eurocanard, it's that simple. Logistics and politics alone would make that purchase very difficult. Your average joe might approve it because a Eurofighter or Rafale is "cooler" but they are clueless as to what happens behind the scenes. IMO, if the F35 doesn't get cancelled, which right now doesn't look like it will happen, then Canada and the parter nations will buy it. Costs will only go down for nations buying them, they don't pay for the testing. Remember, we are budgeted to $9B for the program and it doesn't matter what we buy, we will spend that money. If Canada was to buy $9B worth of Eurocanard or SH, no one would care, yet the F35 seems to get so much scrutiny because of the intense negative media coverage.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 835
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 01:33

I've said this before, I'm utterly astounded how the Cyclone project gets a complete pass when the program has ballooned to double the cost, and yet the F-35 is a target for all the media;s derision.
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 01:40

hb_pencil wrote:I've said this before, I'm utterly astounded how the Cyclone project gets a complete pass when the program has ballooned to double the cost, and yet the F-35 is a target for all the media;s derision.


It's easy to target a fighter, everyone knows everything about them, right? People won't discuss helicopters because they don't know anything about them.
Offline

madrat

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1658
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 03:33

If Canada really was thinking they'd have snatched up the Lightning F.3's from the UK before they got scrapped. A slep would have got them double the original hours and they were a good fit for the mission. They are unlikely to go for the last two dozen that the Saudis are trading back to the UK for Typhoons. Shame.

Germany doesn't have many F-4F ICE left. Those would have worked pretty good for the climate.

I was thinking. For approximately $9 billion the Saudis ordered 60 Typhoons. Why wouldn't second hand Typhoons work?
Offline

maus92

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2030
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 04:06

pushoksti wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:I've said this before, I'm utterly astounded how the Cyclone project gets a complete pass when the program has ballooned to double the cost, and yet the F-35 is a target for all the media;s derision.


It's easy to target a fighter, everyone knows everything about them, right? People won't discuss helicopters because they don't know anything about them.


Or perhaps, because the F-35 is a strike fighter vs. an interceptor. An interceptor is defensive in nature, whereas the F-35 mission (strike) is projecting power.
Offline

duplex

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 388
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2005, 16:30

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 17:00

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -cost.html


Could the Australian decision have an impact on Canada ??
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6913
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 17:47

I blame Big "O" and his arbitrary pressure on the DoD to cut half a trillion. It's time to lead.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 957
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 18:25

madrat wrote:If Canada really was thinking they'd have snatched up the Lightning F.3's from the UK before they got scrapped. A slep would have got them double the original hours and they were a good fit for the mission. They are unlikely to go for the last two dozen that the Saudis are trading back to the UK for Typhoons. Shame.

Germany doesn't have many F-4F ICE left. Those would have worked pretty good for the climate.

I was thinking. For approximately $9 billion the Saudis ordered 60 Typhoons. Why wouldn't second hand Typhoons work?


Wiki says that the Luftwaffe has 45 F-4Fs operational. I wonder if Canada could get a stay on scrapping them until the lot are retired and can be transferred. Frankly, these would be an excellent interim interceptor.
Offline

hotrampphotography

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2011, 15:26
  • Location: YYZ

Unread post23 Mar 2012, 20:20

Canada doesn't need an interceptor.

We also don't need a bombtruck.

We need a multirole aircraft, and the only realistic option is the F-35A. Whatever the government decides to do to fill the void between when our current CF-18 fleet is set to retire and acquiring the F-35 will be just that...a filler.

And we won't be at Red Flag, you'll be coming to Maple Flag. If anything you'll see our continued presence at Combat Archer @ Tyndall AFB.
A freelance journalist with a focus on the three branches of the Canadian Forces.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 01:20

stobiewan wrote:
duplex wrote:http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Fighter+procurement+unwinding/6334578/story.html

It seems that Canada is going to back out of F-35 .... Again the Super Hornet and the Rafale are the only altenatives.


This single line should tell you how wide of the mark the author's understanding of the technology is:

"The Rafale, like the F-35, comes with radar-evading stealth technology, and, insiders say, could be built almost entirely in Canada. "

Rafale has some very rudimentary signal management applied to it in terms of RAM and some shaping of the inlets etc. It does not have anything like the "radar-evading technology" present in the F35.


The Rafale is more expensive. Building in Canada? This means, investing probably at least one $ 1 billion in a production line and will surely be less than 65 jets.

Plus Canada will need to order different armament as well
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 01:46

pushoksti wrote: If Canada was to buy $9B worth of Eurocanard or SH, no one would care, yet the F35 seems to get so much scrutiny because of the intense negative media coverage.


Agree with that. Not only in Canada, as well as in other countries.
A lot of Nay sayers seem to ignore the high costs of other jet types and how problematic development has been.
The Rafale, still only some 81 in service :roll:
Typhoon, operational, but in 2018 expected to be multirole. Though, no complaining ... either what the F35 concerns .... :evil:
Offline

duplex

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 388
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2005, 16:30

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 15:31

The Rafale is more expensive. Building in Canada? This means, investing probably at least one $ 1 billion in a production line and will surely be less than 65 jets.

Plus Canada will need to order different armament as well..





A local assembly line for 60 fighters makes sense which could easily be integrated into the existing production lines of the Bombardier with a little modification. Remember DASSAULT in France produces Rafale and Falcon business jets under the same roof side by side. I billion dollar for assembly line ?? I don't think so..

Anyway ,if Canada decides to cancel the F-35, the Super Hornet would be the first choice.
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 694
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 18:45

duplex wrote:A local assembly line for 60 fighters makes sense which could easily be integrated into the existing production lines of the Bombardier with a little modification. Remember DASSAULT in France produces Rafale and Falcon business jets under the same roof side by side. I billion dollar for assembly line ?? I don't think so


As an example of a production line, Italy some $1 billion investment in their production line
Not that sure, but Japan needs to invest roughly a same amount.

existing production lines of the Bombardier with a little modification?
Don’t think it will be that easy. Suppose this kind of thing is very complicated.

Fokker, as an example, did produce several airline aircraft types at that time (20th century), Fokker 50, 60, 70 and Fokker 100, but setting up a completely new production line for the F16 was needed.
At that time, they produced 213 F16’s for the Netherlands, as well as some 70 for Norway.
Don’t have a number, but investment in this production line wasn’t cheap.


As well as, will it be cost effective for 65 jets?
The F35 is a very complicated aircraft, as well as new advanced production techniques will need new advanced production tools as well.

After reducing Italian numbers they need production of Dutch and Norwegian F35’s to do this still cost effective. I can be wrong, but remember something from an article.
Secondly, the Italians do have specialized production personal available, switching from Typhoon to F35 production (F35, some 10,000?).

Production F35: Italy (90), Norway (52-56), Netherlands (60-85?). Plus may be others, near future?
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mtrman, sferrin and 12 guests