Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

stobiewan · by **stobiewan** » 17 Mar 2012, 21:18

I believe the RAF chucked their pile of change assigned for the FOAS (Future Offensive Avionic System) into the F35C buy so that's an indicator that the UK's future lies with Tiffy plus F35C.

duplex · by **duplex** » 22 Mar 2012, 13:26

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/ ... 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.

hotrampphotography · by **hotrampphotography** » 22 Mar 2012, 14:59

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

It's an op ed piece, nothing more.

Should we go Super Hornet, based on Australia's purchase of 24 for $4.5B, then I wonder how many we'd be able to get for the full $9B budged for it?

duplex · by **duplex** » 22 Mar 2012, 15:35

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

It's an op ed piece, nothing more.

Should we go Super Hornet, based on Australia's purchase of 24 for $4.5B, then I wonder how many we'd be able to get for the full $9B budged for it?

For Canada the SH would be the better choice despite the fact that it is inferior to Rafale . Commonalities with Hornets and AMRAAM+AIM-9X combo would be decisive factors.

hotrampphotography · by **hotrampphotography** » 22 Mar 2012, 15:43

duplex wrote:For Canada the SH would be the better choice despite the fact that it is inferior to Rafale . Commonalities with Hornets and AMRAAM+AIM-9X combo would be decisive factors.

Inferior to Rafale...I guess I beg to differ.

Agree with your commonality factor.

Back to my original question...how many could we afford to get with the amount allotted?

duplex · by **duplex** » 22 Mar 2012, 16:04

hotrampphotography wrote:
duplex wrote:For Canada the SH would be the better choice despite the fact that it is inferior to Rafale . Commonalities with Hornets and AMRAAM+AIM-9X combo would be decisive factors.

Inferior to Rafale...I guess I beg to differ.

Agree with your commonality factor.

Back to my original question...how many could we afford to get with the amount allotted?

Actually I don't know but you should be able to get 65 fighters and most important of all, Boeing would deliver them very fast ! ..I think the amount alloted is irrelevant at this stage as 65 F-35's in the end would cost Canada far more than 9 billion dollars
at least twice the amount. If the F-35 ever will be available before 2020 is of course another question. The SH and the RAFALE are now ! I am 100% certain that both Royal Navy and CANADA will abandon this stupid F-35 program and buy whatever they consider as the alternative.. Wait and see..

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 22 Mar 2012, 16:14

at least twice the amount

And this bit of fortune telling would be coming from?

hotrampphotography · by **hotrampphotography** » 22 Mar 2012, 16:24

duplex wrote:Actually I don't know but you should be able to get 65 fighters and most important of all, Boeing would deliver them very fast ! ..I think the amount alloted is irrelevant at this stage as 65 F-35's in the end would cost Canada far more than 9 billion dollars at least twice the amount. If the F-35 ever will be available before 2020 is of course another question. The SH and the RAFALE are now ! I am 100% certain that both Royal Navy and CANADA will abandon this stupid F-35 program and buy whatever they consider as the alternative.. Wait and see..

If you think that the amount alloted is irrelevant, then why not wait and purchase the F-35, even if as you say it would be at least twice the amount (which, by the way, is absolute bullshit)?

As for you 100% certainty of abandoning this program, if that is the same percentage of certainty you have in the price of the -35A, then I won't hold my breath believing you to be accurate...

sufaviper · by **sufaviper** » 22 Mar 2012, 18:30

Doesn't Boeing have a back log of 100+ F-18, and all the Saudi F-15's? I'm not sure they have a lot of extra room on the line at this time, so "Boeing would deliver them very fast !" is probably false too. Actually with the F-35 line ready and equiped for ~40/year, I think it is the highest rate Fighter line in the world.

Sufa Viper

hotrampphotography · by **hotrampphotography** » 22 Mar 2012, 18:46

Big B announced on Wednesday that it had completed early delivery of the Navy’s second-to-last multi-year batch of Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growlers — 257 airplanes — and that it’s on the glide slope to continue right on through into the final multi-year. That would involve another 66 Es and Fs and 58 Gs, “to be purchased through 2013.” Under today’s deals, including existing international orders, that would mean Boeing would deliver its last jet in 2015, said company spokesman Philip Carder.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/23/the-e ... z1pru8P2XA

DoDBuzz.com

bjr1028 · by **bjr1028** » 22 Mar 2012, 19:07

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

It's an op ed piece, nothing more.

Should we go Super Hornet, based on Australia's purchase of 24 for $4.5B, then I wonder how many we'd be able to get for the full $9B budged for it?

For Canada the SH would be the better choice despite the fact that it is inferior to Rafale . Commonalities with Hornets and AMRAAM+AIM-9X combo would be decisive factors.

In air to air combat, yes. In other areas like range and payload, its superior.

duplex · by **duplex** » 22 Mar 2012, 19:37

[quote="hotrampphotography As for you 100% certainty of abandoning this program, if that is the same percentage of certainty you have in the price of the -35A, then I won't hold my breath believing you to be accurate...[/quote]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/stealth-f ... d=15970732
Believe what you want dude, I couldn't care less the F-35 is a dead end !

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ ... liticsNews

More cost growth would cut F-35 buy !! and the basic principle of economics say ' the lower the production,the higher the price.. right??? anyway if you can afford to wait until 2018 to see if this truck on two wings will be available, so why not?
your choice.

http://gizmodo.com/5895483/pentagon-tri ... y-disaster

It looks more and more like the F-35 is going to end up like the Comanche..

duplex · by **duplex** » 22 Mar 2012, 19:40

[quote="bjr1028 quote]

In air to air combat, yes. In other areas like range and payload, its superior.

I'm confused ...which one is superior and where?

1st503rdsgt · by **1st503rdsgt** » 22 Mar 2012, 21:45

duplex wrote: If the F-35 ever will be available before 2020 is of course another question. The SH and the RAFALE are now ! I am 100% certain that both Royal Navy and CANADA will abandon this stupid F-35 program and buy whatever they consider as the alternative.. Wait and see..

If they dump the F-35 for something else, they're not gonna think the it's so stupid when they come up against it at Red Flag 2021.

maus92 · by **maus92** » 22 Mar 2012, 22:52

sufaviper wrote:Doesn't Boeing have a back log of 100+ F-18, and all the Saudi F-15's? I'm not sure they have a lot of extra room on the line at this time, so "Boeing would deliver them very fast !" is probably false too. Actually with the F-35 line ready and equiped for ~40/year, I think it is the highest rate Fighter line in the world.

Sufa Viper

Boeing can surge up to 54 E/F/G Super Hornets per year without requiring more tooling. The max it can produce per year is 72, and the minimum sustainable rate is 24. The Navy is taking delivery of 40 in 2012, 43 in 2013, 40 in 2014, 38 in 2015. Clearly there is capacity to produce more units.