Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

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

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6721
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post20 Aug 2013, 07:38

FlightDreamz wrote:Keep hearing rumors online about Canada ditching the F-35 Lightning II in favor of the F/A-18E "Super" Hornet (which would be monumentally stupid in my opinion - too short ranged for one thing) see http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2013/02/boeings-bid-to-replace-cf-18s-gets-cbcnewsca-readers-talking.html
<b>Boeing's bid to replace CF-18s gets CBCNews.ca readers talking</b>
Terry Milewski's look at the Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet, now emerging as a rival to the Lockheed Martin F-35 as the Canadian Forces' replacement for its aging CF-18s, really got the CBC Community talking.

Many of the comments on our story were enthusiastic about the Super Hornet being considered, as Ottawa reviews its commitment to buy F-35s.


Or http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/canada-preparing-to-replace-its-cf-18-hornets-05739/
Canada’s 138 “CF-18s” were delivered between 1982-1988, but accidents and retirements have reduced the fleet to about 103, with only 79 upgraded F/A-18 AM/BM Hornets still operational. The CF-18s are expected to be phased out between 2017 – 2020 Now, 65 new CF-35As are Canada’s official choice to replace its Hornets – and estimates of the cost range from $17 billion to $45.8 billion.


And finally http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/02/12/the-super-hornet-would-out-perform-the-f-35-in-any-canadian-arctic-operation-says-cf-18-pilot/
I'm not even going to post snippet's from that article. Best to click on the link and draw your own conclusions! :roll:


So, let's say Canada could afford 79 Super Hornet vs 65 F-35's. What's the advantage??? As the latter is vastly more survivable! In 1944 would you want 79 Wildcats or 65 Hellcats??? Personally, I doubt many would take the former. Just as I doubt anybody will seriously take Super Hornets vs F-35's. :wink:
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post20 Aug 2013, 09:45

Corsair1963 wrote:! In 1944 would you want 79 Wildcats or 65 Hellcats??? Personally, I doubt many would take the former. Just as I doubt anybody will seriously take Super Hornets vs F-35's. :wink:


I am sure slowman would. He would probably argue that it would also lead to all similar air arms doing the same...except some would go even further and get F2Fs...
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post20 Aug 2013, 12:45

Boeing's bid to replace CF-18s gets CBCNews.ca readers talking
Terry Milewski's look at the Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet, now emerging as a rival to the Lockheed Martin F-35 as the Canadian Forces' replacement for its aging CF-18s, really got the CBC Community talking.

Many of the comments on our story were enthusiastic about the Super Hornet being considered, as Ottawa reviews its commitment to buy F-35s.


Yeah, a community made up of the same ignorant and shortsighted attitudes that put us in the Cyclone fiasco. Because military acquisition should be treated like a popularity contest.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 512
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post20 Aug 2013, 14:59

The Canadian Broadcorping Castration . . . Clueless journalism for morons.
Offline

slowman.

Banned

  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2013, 17:10

Unread post20 Aug 2013, 15:40

Corsair1963 wrote:So, let's say Canada could afford 79 Super Hornet vs 65 F-35's. What's the advantage???

1. You could buy 110 Silent Hornets for the price of 65 CF-35s.
2. Far better offset terms from Boeing than from Lockheed Martin.
3. Safety of a twin engine jet in arctic flights.

In 1944 would you want 79 Wildcats or 65 Hellcats???

110 Wildcats are not such a bad choice relative to 65 Hellcats, because numeric strength has a quality of its own and allows tactics not possible with fewer number of planes.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post20 Aug 2013, 16:03

slowman. wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:So, let's say Canada could afford 79 Super Hornet vs 65 F-35's. What's the advantage???

1. You could buy 110 Silent Hornets for the price of 65 CF-35s.
BS

The development of the "Silent" Hornet is not paid for and please stop comparing FRP Hornets to LRIP F-35s. Canada will be mostly buying FRP F-35s.

2. Far better offset terms from Boeing than from Lockheed Martin.
No they cannot. Canada will be part of the F-35 program for 40 years. Boeing cannot make the same long term guarantees. The problem with traditional offsets is that they are short term in nature and only cover a small number of airframes.

3. Safety of a twin engine jet in arctic flights.
Norway has no problems with it's F-16s.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6414
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post20 Aug 2013, 17:07

Silent Hornets are theoretical aircraft. :lol:

I prefer Silent Tomcats myself, and you can buy 200 of those for the price of 100 Silent hornets.

This is all possible because I say so
Offline

stobiewan

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 310
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 12:34
  • Location: UK

Unread post20 Aug 2013, 23:46

XanderCrews wrote:Silent Hornets are theoretical aircraft. :lol:

I prefer Silent Tomcats myself, and you can buy 200 of those for the price of 100 Silent hornets.

This is all possible because I say so


Ah, but I have the SilentArrow! Mach 5 (6 if I've had beer) with twin engines and it runs on beer. Or something. It's Canuckian.

And it's (picks figure out of thin air) ONE QUARTER the price of an F35...

Seriously, how much BS can one troll produce. ..F15 in standard trim is more than the FRP price for F35.
Offline

gtx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 00:08

Damn!! You have Silent Arrows? I give up then. All I have is a Silent Spitfire...
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 878
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 00:35

pfft.

I have a the Silent Bomarc. As we all know, that kills Silent Arrow any day and every day.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 00:35

Can I get a hypothetical F-23 hypothetically equipped with EOTS and DAS?
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 01:11

count to 10 -- don't joke... an F-23 with something like PAWS-2+, integrated IRST (off the shelf) and external SNIPER SE pod would not only be 'good enough', but would likely even negate the need for USAF to pursue LRIP F-35A recap today! Simply augment with UCAV/UAV and possibly even short-term F-16 if need be.


Spud -- You are correct, the 'Advanced Super Hornet' is not yet funded nor complete. But it could be incrementally funded and achieved (jointly), to an acceptable standard, within 3-5 years. Most likely too, it could be procured at nearly a 2:1 ratio (vs F-35A) in FY16, FY17 and FY18.

Look at the potential 'Advanced Super Hornet' as more of a 'growth pathway' and less of an outright platform 'block' upgrade.

But please, you are really criticizing and classifying Boeing's annual output of 20-30 total Super Hornet units as being 'FRP'!?! And then honestly complaining that someone can't compare said hypothetical 'FRP' 30x Super Hornet output rate, vs an 'LRIP' F-35 output rate of over 50 combined units annually in FY16 and FY17 and FY18?!?
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 01:48

By SH FRP I mean fully developed, all the kinks worked out, etc.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6721
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 01:48

geogen wrote:count to 10 -- don't joke... an F-23 with something like PAWS-2+, integrated IRST (off the shelf) and external SNIPER SE pod would not only be 'good enough', but would likely even negate the need for USAF to pursue LRIP F-35A recap today! Simply augment with UCAV/UAV and possibly even short-term F-16 if need be.


Spud -- You are correct, the 'Advanced Super Hornet' is not yet funded nor complete. But it could be incrementally funded and achieved (jointly), to an acceptable standard, within 3-5 years. Most likely too, it could be procured at nearly a 2:1 ratio (vs F-35A) in FY16, FY17 and FY18.

Look at the potential 'Advanced Super Hornet' as more of a 'growth pathway' and less of an outright platform 'block' upgrade.

But please, you are really criticizing and classifying Boeing's annual output of 20-30 total Super Hornet units as being 'FRP'!?! And then honestly complaining that someone can't compare said hypothetical 'FRP' 30x Super Hornet output rate, vs an 'LRIP' F-35 output rate of over 50 combined units annually in FY16 and FY17 and FY18?!?


Ok, I have a question or maybe it should be a topic for another thread. Yet, even if the Advance Super Hornet was funded with Stealthy Weapons Pods, CFT's, and more Powerful GE F414 EDE's. Could it still compete with forthcoming Stealth Fighters from Russia and China. (i.e. PAK-FA, J-20, J-31, etc. etc.) :?: :?: :?:
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post21 Aug 2013, 02:17

geogen wrote:count to 10 -- don't joke... an F-23 with something like PAWS-2+, integrated IRST (off the shelf) and external SNIPER SE pod would not only be 'good enough', but would likely even negate the need for USAF to pursue LRIP F-35A recap today! Simply augment with UCAV/UAV and possibly even short-term F-16 if need be.


Why would it need an external pod? The planned F-35 looks like it had it integrated:
Image
http://www.yf-23.net/Pics/F-23A/F-23A%2 ... 201500.gif

The NAFT F-23 too.
Image
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/ ... small2.jpg
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests