Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

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

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 709
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post19 May 2012, 07:48

The idea of Pacific Rim nations working together to build an aircraft isn't impossible, but it always helps to have a center of gravity before embarking on such a journey, and don't expect a short journey. Which of these partner nations gets to make the final call when a disagreement is reached?

The author gushed abit about the aim being a less expensive twin engine long range air superiority fighter (because that is what Canada needs). Is that really what S. Korea is looking for? And bringing up the Avro Arrow as a reason to bash the F-35A ( come on that old Arrow saw again )??? Evil Yankees invaded our leaders minds with high frequency control signals beamed from hidden transmitters in the heads on Mt Rushmore and caused us to cancel our rightful place as global leaders in aerospace aircraft construction.
Offline

2meese

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2012, 22:55

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 00:02

hb_pencil wrote:
madrat wrote:If Canada looked for alternatives why wouldn't they honestly look at Gripen NG with Meteor?


No stealth and a flyaway cost that rivals that of the F-35.


whaaat..The Gripen has a lower flyaway cost and cost per machine actually, Canadian jobs (optional) in production, sharing technology, Better allover performance, cheaper and easier to maintain, and let's not forget that it's ALOT more reliable and would be a perfect fit for canada since it could operate even from roadside bases. It might not have the internal munitions bay and be a pure "stealth" machine, but it's really small and hard to spot. Couple that with a greater range(exceeding 1300 k for combat patrol), higher speed and a much better manoeuverability and you'll have a great "bang for the buck" 4.5 gen multirole aircraft for the Canadian taxpayer.
Offline

2meese

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2012, 22:55

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 00:08

m wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:@M the problem with the Gripen and the F-16 as far as Canada is concerned is its short range.


It was for the Gripen C, but not for the NG. However Saab acknowledged in parliamentary hearings that their fighter would not measure up to the F-35 in expeditionary warfare. Instead they were offering it as a complement to the F-35 for domestic ops.



One of the weird things was that they claimed an per hour cost of $4000 dollars... which is ridiculously low.


This low cost of the Gripen did intrigue me for some time. Compared with a F16, some US $22,000- NL $26,000. This is a difference too much.
All kind of hard stuff, like for instance tires etc., can’t be that much cheaper.

Fuel costs: In 2011, the price of jet fuel was $2.10 for one gallon.


May be an aspect could be, the Swedish Airforce has / had conscripts? This will result in lower flying costs per hour of a Gripen. But still does not declare a $4000 per flying hour.

Don’t have the actual number of flying hours per pilot per year, but Swedish pilots fly less than 180 hours (Nato) a year


Another aspect, Swedish Gripens did not fly that many flying hours
This table shows Gripen flying hours (Swedish Airforce)

Total Gripen flying hours, after first delivery:

June 1993: The first production aircraft (39.102) was delivered to FMV on 8 June.

2000: 12,000 flying hours

2004: 45,000 flying hours (142 Gripens)

2005: 60,000 flying hours (159 Gripens)

2007: 96,320 flying hours (193 Gripens)

2008: 100,000 flying hours > In eight 8 years: 88,000 flying hours (100,000 -12,000)

http://www.cemus.uu.se/dokument/projekt ... so_far.pdf

Quote: January 2008
28 January 2008 saw another significant milestone in the Gripen programme, when the Gripen fleet
soared past the historic 100,000 flying hour mark.



Compared with a Dutch deployment in Afghanistan (4, 6 and 8 F16's)
10 years: deployment Afghanistan
o Total flying hours: 27,000 flying hours

Calculated this figure:
o Flying hours per year: 2700
o F16 per year: 540 flying hours (average number F16’s: 5 F16’s)


http://www.stratpost.com/wp-content/plu ... hp?id=6342
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5997
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 00:34

2meese wrote: 4.5 gen multirole aircraft for the Canadian taxpayer.


Oh you can find 4.5 generation aircraft everywhere, thats not the real problem is it?

The problem is that no matter how many 4.5 Gen aircraft you buy, you still don't have a 5th generation aircraft.

You can compare 4.5 gen aircraft until your eyes cross, but if they had fifth gen capability, we would call them 5th gen, and not 4.5 gen.You can't be half pregnant. you are or you aren't.

We all have our favorite 4.5 Generation aircraft:

Advanced Flankers, and Fulcrums, F-18Fs, Rafales, Typhoons, Gripens.

But there are basically only 2 available 5th gen aircraft.

The F-22 and the F-35. and the F-22 isn't available for export, and is OOP. so that kinda narrows it down.

:wink:

Frankly if Canada decides not to get the F-35, I really don't care what 4.5 Gen aircraft they get, anything other than the F-35 is just splitting hairs. You can fight over silver and bronze while everyone else gets gold.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 26 Nov 2012, 00:56, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

bumtish

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 378
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 15:59

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 00:35

@ m

The actual Gripen flying hours of the Swedish Air Force are

Flygplanstyp 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
JAS 39 10,854 7,864 13,226 12,777 11,731

These numbers include foreign pilots being trained in Sweden.

Page 51 here
http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/upload/dok ... R%2011.pdf

Sweden is flying less hours than the Norwegian Air Force, which has about a third of the aircraft and which are pretty worn F-16s.


@ hb_pencil

I can join you on your skepticism wrt the Gripen CPFH. The $4k / hr figure is age-old and pertains to the Gripen A/B/C/D. I believe Saab have mentioned $7k / hr for the E/F. I suspect this is run at optimum conditions and some O&S costs which customers would normally include for through-life costs are not included. Conscripts may also be a factor.
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 02:41

2meese wrote:whaaat..The Gripen has a lower flyaway cost and cost per machine actually, Canadian jobs (optional) in production, sharing technology, Better allover performance, cheaper and easier to maintain, and let's not forget that it's ALOT more reliable and would be a perfect fit for canada since it could operate even from roadside bases. It might not have the internal munitions bay and be a pure "stealth" machine, but it's really small and hard to spot. Couple that with a greater range(exceeding 1300 k for combat patrol), higher speed and a much better manoeuverability and you'll have a great "bang for the buck" 4.5 gen multirole aircraft for the Canadian taxpayer.


interesting that you appear to think that the jobs element is optional - I'm sure there are plenty in Canada who would disagree.

How do you figure that the Gripen is "easier to maintain" or that it is " ALOT more reliable"

As for it being "a perfect fit for canada since it could operate even from roadside bases." please explain how this suddenly fits into Canadian operating routine?
Offline

borntoholdout

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 17:06
  • Location: closer than you think

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 03:07

I think the range of the F-35 is under sold. Most of the time the F-35 will fly with drop tanks. You can always drop your tanks the one time you need to. The F-35 probably has a lower RCS with 3 tanks than a Rafale with none. :D
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 03:26

About drop tanks in general, does anybody go pick them up after it's dropped, or are they just lost upon detaching?

Do drop tanks have little parachutes so that they land softly and can be reused?
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 03:30

Droptanks are disposable and the F-35 only carries 2.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 03:32

Has anybody ever been hit by a drop tank detaching?
Offline

bigjku

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 679
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2012, 21:00

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 03:35

2meese wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
madrat wrote:If Canada looked for alternatives why wouldn't they honestly look at Gripen NG with Meteor?


No stealth and a flyaway cost that rivals that of the F-35.


whaaat..The Gripen has a lower flyaway cost and cost per machine actually, Canadian jobs (optional) in production, sharing technology, Better allover performance, cheaper and easier to maintain, and let's not forget that it's ALOT more reliable and would be a perfect fit for canada since it could operate even from roadside bases. It might not have the internal munitions bay and be a pure "stealth" machine, but it's really small and hard to spot. Couple that with a greater range(exceeding 1300 k for combat patrol), higher speed and a much better manoeuverability and you'll have a great "bang for the buck" 4.5 gen multirole aircraft for the Canadian taxpayer.


Sharing what technology? I am not sure the Gripen has anything worth sharing. It got it engine from the US. NASA helped fix its flight control issues. It uses mostly US or European weapons. Its radar is derivative of an old British radar set. Is there a single piece of "technology" on the Gripen that Canada does not already have in its CF-18's?
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 03:43

bigjku wrote:Sharing what technology? I am not sure the Gripen has anything worth sharing. It got it engine from the US. NASA helped fix its flight control issues. It uses mostly US or European weapons. Its radar is derivative of an old British radar set. Is there a single piece of "technology" on the Gripen that Canada does not already have in its CF-18's?


It's got the world's most astonishingly amazing data-link. Despite this data-link being a more than 20 year old design, it's amazingly capable and far more capable than anything else that has ever been designed or could ever be designed.

It's also got amazingly astonishing aerodynamics, so much so that with a single F404 engine and bugger all fuel, it can out range an F-15E and out-perform (kinematically) an SR-71...

It truly is a magical "wunder" aircraft the Gripen (at least according to it's more strident fans)...

:roll:
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 03:44

kamenriderblade wrote:Has anybody ever been hit by a drop tank detaching?


I'm fairly certain a few of the posters at ELP's blog have been hit by a "detaching drop tank..."

:lol:
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 21:52
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 03:51

Conan wrote:
kamenriderblade wrote:Has anybody ever been hit by a drop tank detaching?


I'm fairly certain a few of the posters at ELP's blog have been hit by a "detaching drop tank..."

:lol:


We couldn't be so lucky...plus the drop tank would break :lol:
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1043
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post26 Nov 2012, 04:05

gtx wrote:
Conan wrote:
kamenriderblade wrote:Has anybody ever been hit by a drop tank detaching?


I'm fairly certain a few of the posters at ELP's blog have been hit by a "detaching drop tank..."

:lol:


We couldn't be so lucky...plus the drop tank would break :lol:


True...
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests