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

[hkultala]

I think Canada should have chosen the F-35C. They were worried about the short range of the air craft and they get the A version, eh?

What "short range" are you talking about?

F-35A has a very long range for a fighter, thanks to over 8 tonnes of internal fuel, very fuel-efficient engine for a fighter, and very aerodynamical weapons carriage.

And F-35C does not have more range than F-35A. It has more loitering time though, but canada does need that loitering time.

F-35A was exactly the correct choice for Canada.

The only pitfall F-35A has for land-based fighter tasks compared to F-35C is the refueling system that is optimized for refueling heavy bombers, not fighters.

IMHO they should make F-35D which would be F-35A with the refueling system of F-35B/C, that would be what most international customers would want.

[magitsu]

Another year and people still keep longing for B and C, without noticing how basically nobody without a flattop has been acquiring them. Especially C. Extra cost to buy and upkeep, mostly useless carrier equipment, only one other user... if range somehow becomes a problem it's probably better to fund the rest of the integration and testing work for A drop tanks.

A already compares well against Hornet for range.

[ricnunes]

I think Canada should have chosen the F-35C. They were worried about the short range of the air craft and they get the A version, eh?

Actually in the past (circa 2009, if I'm not mistaken) Canada actually considered the F-35C because of expected longer range and probe and drone air refueling (which is compatible with current CC-150 Polaris tankers).
However like others have pointed out, the diference in combat radius during Air-to-Ground missions is only 1 (one) nautical miles more than the F-35A. The F-35A is also considerably cheaper than the F-35C which means that what the F-35C may have in terms of "extra" capabilities don't compensate the extra cost unless someone wants to operate it from aircraft carriers which obviously is NOT the case of Canada.

And like already mentioned before there's no problem with the F-35A when it comes to range! For example and for the first time it seems, Canada has a fighter aircraft that can fly non-stop from Cold Lake, Alberta (one of RCAF main bases) to Inuvik, Northwest Territories (one of RCAF forward operating bases) without air-to-air refueling:

[luke_sandoz]

And this. . . . New MRTT fleet with boom tanking means the A model has a friend in the skies

[luke_sandoz]

Ohhhh . .. This is good

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4uRt6OXF43c

[ricnunes]

A very interesting article which covers in great part the pilot retention issue with the RCAF and how the F-35 could help mitigate or even overcome it. It also mentions the contribution that the F-35 gives to the Canadian economy.

Can F-35 jets help fix military recruitment woes? Defence minister says yes
By Aaron D'Andrea Global News
Posted January 11, 2023 12:15 pm

Ottawa’s deal to replace its aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets with 88 brand-new F-35s can help alleviate recruitment issues plaguing Canada’s military, Anita Anand says.


Lockheed Martin’s jets are set to arrive in the coming years, and Monday’s purchase announcement could help motivate young Canadians to seek a career in the armed forces, the national defence minister told Global News Radio 640 Toronto on Wednesday.

“We really need to ensure that we’re recruiting and retaining our very best and brightest, and we do want young, talented people to join to fly the fifth-generation fighters. This is an incredibly exciting opportunity,” she said.

“We will continue to grow the Canadian Armed Forces from a personnel and a capability perspective. Visit a recruiting centre is all I can recommend at this point. It’s a really great opportunity.”

...

“Potential to contribute over $425 million annually to GDP, close to 3,300 jobs annually for Canadian industry and supply chain partners over a 25-year period. We have a very vibrant aerospace industry. Canadian components already are being placed in these aircraft around the world, and indeed, Canadian businesses have already captured about $3 billion in this industry.”

However, this decision should have been made long ago, Richard Shimooka, a senior fellow at the Macdonald Laurier Institute, told Global News on Monday.

“The delays have been so serious and so long coming that … it’s had some serious consequences for Canada’s ability to defend itself,” Shimooka said.

The Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) has struggled to retain its pilots, and Shimooka said the outdated fleet and everlasting deliberations over a potential replacement didn’t help the issue.

The air force is supposed to have about 1,500 pilots, but the number has fallen short in recent years. In 2021, the RCAF was short about 130 pilots from its target number, The Canadian Press reported. In 2019, the RCAF was short 225 pilots from the 1,500 desired.

“We’ve just not replaced an aircraft that needed to be replaced and are flying, you know, an aircraft that is 50 years old,” Shimooka said.

“It’s basically obsolete compared to what every single one our allies operate. So many pilots just see that as just being unacceptable, and … they’ve decided to vote with their feet and leave.”

The first F-35 aircraft are set to be delivered in Canada in 2026, officials said Monday, and the full fleet is expected to reach operational capability between 2032 and 2034.

Read the FULL ARTICLE here:
https://globalnews.ca/news/9402522/f-35 ... ita-anand/

Of course, I fully agree with Mr. Shimooka. This decision should have been made long ago!

[pushoksti]

For example and for the first time it seems, Canada has a fighter aircraft that can fly non-stop from Cold Lake, Alberta (one of RCAF main bases) to Inuvik, Northwest Territories (one of RCAF forward operating bases) without air-to-air refueling:

The CF-18s with three jugs can do that without AAR.

A very interesting article which covers in great part the pilot retention issue with the RCAF and how the F-35 could help mitigate or even overcome it. It also mentions the contribution that the F-35 gives to the Canadian economy.

This is accurate:

[ricnunes]

For example and for the first time it seems, Canada has a fighter aircraft that can fly non-stop from Cold Lake, Alberta (one of RCAF main bases) to Inuvik, Northwest Territories (one of RCAF forward operating bases) without air-to-air refueling:

The CF-18s with three jugs can do that without AAR.

Yes, I imagine that they might. But that would be a Ferry configuration (3 external tanks plus only a couple or so air-to-air missiles for self-defence).
The F-35 does that in a Combat configuration.

[pushoksti]

For example and for the first time it seems, Canada has a fighter aircraft that can fly non-stop from Cold Lake, Alberta (one of RCAF main bases) to Inuvik, Northwest Territories (one of RCAF forward operating bases) without air-to-air refueling:

The CF-18s with three jugs can do that without AAR.

Yes, I imagine that they might. But that would be a Ferry configuration (3 external tanks plus only a couple or so air-to-air missiles for self-defence).
The F-35 does that in a Combat configuration.

I didn’t know the CF-18s missiles are for defence and F-35s are for offence.

[ricnunes]

I didn’t know the CF-18s missiles are for defence and F-35s are for offence.

Ok, let me explain it better:
- A CF-18 with 3 external tanks will have a harder time performing an air-to-air task like for example an interception of a sudden intruder and potentially hostile aircraft with effectiveness when carrying 3 external fuel tanks during a Ferry mission due to impact that this have on the aircraft's performance.
- A CF-18 in the same Ferry mission would/could/should likely carry a Targeting Pod (essencial for long range target VID), 1xAMRAAM - a BVR missile and as such an "offensive" missile, if you will - plus 2xAIM-9s - short range and as such "defensive" missiles, if you will.
As opposed the F-35 currently carries 4xAMRAAMs and in the near future 6xAMRAAMs (and as such "offensive" missiles, if you will), this independently if the F-35 is doing Ferry missions or actual Air-to-Air missions (like interceptions).

What I (also) mean is that with the F-35 there won't be any diference in configuration between a typical Ferry mission and a typical Air-to-Air mission while in a CF-18 or with any other 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft for that matter, there is.

Capiche?

[ricnunes]

Below, there's a link to a very interesting article (IMO) by Peter MacKay, former minister of foreign affairs and national defense in the previous Conservative government, which is too long to quote here, even if I quote only the parts that I find interesting:

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnis ... for-canada

IMO, he only makes a mistake the article: Canada didn't buy (used) Super Hornets from Australia but instead it bought Legacy Hornet (basically the same as the CF-18).

[luke_sandoz]

And we thought Canada was done chugging the Stupid Kool Aid

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contrib ... ghterjet_s

[ricnunes]

And we thought Canada was done chugging the Stupid Kool Aid

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contrib ... ghterjet_s

There will always be idiots like that!

This part is simply "hilarious":

Canada does not need the F-35 to defend itself, mainly because no one is threatening us.

I see that Mr. Taylor C. Noakes has been living under a rock.
And I wonder why these guys who can't even tell the diference between a landing gear and a wing of an aircraft get to publish idiotic articles like this.

[mixelflick]

Nobody threatening Canada LOL. I guess he doesn't understand they're part of NATO? Hard to believe there are people still like this in the world, but there it is...

On the fuel issue, the following may help put things in perspective...

Legacy Hornet internal fuel: 10,500lbs or thereabouts
Legacy Hornet w/3 bags: 2,750lbs or thereabouts (Not sure if I did the conversion right, but it sounds like it may be in the ballpark)...

TOTAL FUEL INTERNAL/EXTERNAL: 13,750lbs (ballpark)
TOTAL FUEL F-35A INTERNAL ONLY: 18,000lbs (ballpark)

Now factor in the fact external drag will be astronomical fuel a full up external fuel/weapons for the CF-18 and very, very little for a comparable air to air loadout for the F-35A and..... the answer is obvious as to which aircraft is better suited to defending the vast territory of Canada. Frankly, I'm surprised the F-18 was ever in the running for Canada.

[ricnunes]

Frankly, I'm surprised the F-18 was ever in the running for Canada.

Just to be sure, are you talking about now or back in the 1980's?