Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

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

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 19:23

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


Would be amazed Canada would cancel the F35. Almost every country threatened to do so, but no one ever did.
Other types, as the Rafale and Typhoon are very expensive as well.

When did the F18 E/F became operational: 2001? Till so far exported to only one country and until 2012 not more than 24 exported.
Even a Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen C/D were more succesful.

There are too many competitors for the F18 to become an export success, especially when the F35 will be in full production.


Basically the design of the F18 goes back to 1965:
The aircraft's main design elements date to early 1965, from the internal Northrop project N-300. Evolved into the P-530 Cobra.
The P-530's wing planform and nose section was similar to the F-5. First flight 1974. (Quoted from wikipedia)
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 20:00

Part of a really funny comment about F35 debates
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/04/8494/

Do read especially "The Future" and "Conclusions"
Quite long to quote the Future, but quoted Conclusions

Conclusions
The Joint Strike Fighter program has – unfortunately like so many other projects – suffered from being poorly planned, poorly conceived, poorly budgeted, and from a not inconsiderable amount of lies, damned lies, and poorly researched statistics.
If you honestly believe this program will not go ahead now then there is probably something wrong with you.
But chin up my friends. The F-35 is not as bad as the haters make out. It may not be the silver bullet that its mouth-foaming supporters would have you believe, but it’s not a bad bit of kit overall.

And look on the bright side, as the colonialist’s might say “it’s going to make a kick-ass Airfix model!”
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11280
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 20:51

"The F35 Lightening II" Pity 'Chris.B' cannot spell... date should be 01 April 2011 instead of 11th. :D
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

outlaw162

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 998
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 21:17

Lightening....

making your wallet weigh less.

:D
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post24 Mar 2012, 21:47

This for example is one I did like in his comment:

Then we have the weapons issue. People scream blue murder at the top of their voices about the fact that an F-35 can only hold four air-to-air weapons in it’s internal bay, meanwhile the skies are roaming with hostile aircraft carrying at least 8 each. When any has the temerity to suggest that the F-35 could carry external weapons to, we’re told that this “compromises the stealth characteristics”.

The trouble with this argument is simple; the term “compromises” is often confused with “turns it into a Boeing 747”. For some reason nobody stops to ask how big the Typhoon carrying 8 weapons externally would appear on radar compared to an F-35 carrying four weapons externally and four internally. Yes it would lose some of its stealth characteristics, but it would still fundamentally be a difficult aircraft to detect and track on radar.
Offline

river_otter

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 176
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 09:42
  • Location: Arizona

Unread post25 Mar 2012, 17:45

m wrote:When any has the temerity to suggest that the F-35 could carry external weapons to, we’re told that this “compromises the stealth characteristics”.

The trouble with this argument is simple; the term “compromises” is often confused with “turns it into a Boeing 747”. For some reason nobody stops to ask how big the Typhoon carrying 8 weapons externally would appear on radar compared to an F-35 carrying four weapons externally and four internally. Yes it would lose some of its stealth characteristics, but it would still fundamentally be a difficult aircraft to detect and track on radar.


Even funnier, it's often the same people who say an F/A-18SE (carrying two weapons in a stealthy pod) turns it into a real stealth aircraft.

That pod is an interesting development though, starting from something that really is a stealth aircraft in the first place. Boeing claims the SE's pod is actually less draggy than two external missiles on pylons, in addition to being stealthy. So why can't the F-35 carry a stealthy pod on each wing and get 8 missiles without seriously compromising stealth? The F-35 (B/C) itself carries a cannon pod that doesn't compromise stealth. It seems to me the main decrement from external stores, if it matters enough to pay for the pods, is going to be increased drag leading to decreased speed and range, not a significant compromise to stealth.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4793
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post25 Mar 2012, 17:51

I've had that thought too.

Since the pod was designed for 2xAAM and 2xJDAMs... I wonder if it could fit a JASSM or AARGM?
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

chrisrt

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2010, 09:27

Unread post26 Mar 2012, 04:37

So ah, when does the supposed superior weapon systems come into play? I mean even if it had the RCS of an F/A-18x shouldn’t it have the upper hand?
Offline

luke_sandoz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 233
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post26 Mar 2012, 21:50

The pinheads in the media and the various fear mongering "experts" can whip up the occasional frenzy, but smart folks don't care much about that.

Smart folks do this.

http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vol12/no2/18-wilner-eng.asp
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11280
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Apr 2012, 05:13

Canada likes to keep in the news - amazing development if predictions come about. [And it ain't April Fools Day no more.] :-)

F-35 program to get overhaul after scathing AG report CBC News Posted: Apr 2 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... eport.html

"Canada will re-examine the F-35 jet fighter program following the release of an auditor general's report tomorrow that slams the Defence Department regarding its compliance with procurement policies.

CBC News has learned that Auditor General Michael Ferguson will focus his criticism on the air force and on procurement officials inside the Defence Department.

His report is expected to say that officials inside the Defence Department misled government ministers and did not provide accurate information about everything from the cost of the Lockheed Martin fighters to the delivery date.

The government is expected to strip the Defence Department of its responsibility for the program and set up a special secretariat of deputy ministers inside the Public Works Department to manage the program...."
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

luke_sandoz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 233
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post03 Apr 2012, 14:02

Nothing new then from Canada. The F-35 is still the chosen platform and the government has created a buying layer to insulate themselves from criticism.

Lots of media sturm & drang but business as usual under the kimono for the Canadian F-35 program.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11280
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Apr 2012, 15:03

Ah So - Kabuki Theatre! :D
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

m

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 651
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2011, 23:40
  • Location: NL

Unread post03 Apr 2012, 16:26

Not only Canada, but as well for other level partners.

Budget Canada: C$21.8 billion (2010–2011)

Investment: $9 billion
Over 30 years: $300 million per year

Investment $9 billion in 2012 dollars. Canada in fact will have invested $300 million per year, over 30 years.

With a total budget of C$21.8 billion (in 2010–2011). Investment new equipment percentage (?).
The Canadian Defence budget in 2040-2050 will be sky high, in dollars, compared with 2010-2011

Still, over 30 years Canada will have invested some $300 million per year, ordering the F35. While the Canadian defence budget, in dollars, will have raised enormously.

Not sure what term Canada wants to pay for the F35. Norway probably 30 years, Dutch, some 10 years (?). Canada for instance 15 years, so the last 15 of 30 years the F35 will be a bargain
Last 15 years; Inflation, a raised defence budget in dollars, while the F35 has been paid for.


The high US figure over 55 years can’t be compared with Canadian figures. Canada does not pay more than they have invested in (development).
Infrastructure costs for the F35 are minimal for Canada compared with the US. As well as other costs

Compare as well the price of an F16, or F18, has been paid for in 1976-1980.
In the future. we will look back to the F35 as a cheap jet, compared with the prices of new jets in 2040-2050.
Wouldn’t be amazed prices, some +$500 million per jet?
Offline

johnwill

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1491
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post03 Apr 2012, 18:51

outlaw162 wrote:Lightening....

making your wallet weigh less.

:D


Well, maybe your coin holder, as the US F-35 will have a per capita flyaway cost of around 25 cents. :shock:
Offline

luke_sandoz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 233
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post03 Apr 2012, 19:10

link the budget report from the auditor - pretty ordinary stuff, life goes on.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/Engli ... .html#hd5k

"2.78 The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program is unique. In this context, National Defence, as the lead department, exercised due diligence in managing Canada’s participation in the Program. National Defence managed industrial participation well (together with Industry Canada), identified and communicated risks and mitigation strategies related to JSF Program participation, and assessed options before signing the 2006 memorandum of understanding (MOU), committing Canada to the third phase of the JSF Program (production, sustainment, and follow-on development.) However, National Defence did not fully inform decision makers of the implications of participation in the JSF Program for the acquisition process. In some cases, documented analysis did not exist to support decisions."
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest