I don't think anyone forgets that, but all the delays and cost overruns to the F-35 program only emerged in recent years, after The Harper Government was elected. Knowing what we know now, do you think Chretien would have still signed Canada to the JSF program back in 1997? If given the chance to do it over again with the benefit of hindsight, would Harper continue the policy of the previous government?
Yes to both.
At the end of the day, the F-35 won the first competition in an overwhelming fashion.
At the end of the second day it will win again.
The F35 as a replacement plane is the best option right now for our needs and our defense strategy.
But when you read that website, Its little more then a shell design with no clue of what it is.
Totally agree. It's one thing to draw a cool picture, quite another to actually engineer it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
the day and age of Canada ever creating their own fighter program is dead and gone
The Patriot in me refuses to accept that. I know you are very likely quite right but a guy can dream.
I do wonder though, did people have similar opinions about our chanes with the Arrow at the time? Did it seem like a far fetched dream then too?
I know we need something and we need it now, but I do believe given sufficient time and a chance, we could come up with a Canadian solution. And I'd bet we would do a hell of a job too.
Here is another part of the Avro story I forget about that is also tragic, the Iroquois engine. Also a Canadain desgin, Also highly advanced, also equally awesome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orenda_Iroquois And naturally the US thought enough of it to buy the rights. I believe it also wound up leading to the development of the engines for the Condorde.
If anyone is interested, Dan Akroyd did a produced a movie about the Avro Arrow.
I'll warn you, this movie will give you a increibly feeling of pride followed by an incredible feeling of frustration and dissapointment.
I do wonder though, did people have similar opinions about our chanes with the Arrow at the time? Did it seem like a far fetched dream then too?
I don't think it was far fetched at the time because we had the expertise and industry to at least make it feasible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay
I know we need something and we need it now, but I do believe given sufficient time and a chance, we could come up with a Canadian solution. And I'd bet we would do a hell of a job too.
Even Canadians don't give Canada enough credit.
Sure we could come up with a Canadian solution, probably a great one, if we gave it the same kind of resources as a modern fighter development takes.
But there's a reason that the UK and Italy and Denmark and Canada and a bunch of others are involved in the F-35 program rather than rolling their own.
Canada could make it's own fighters, if we wanted to increase the per unit cost by a factor of 10. People balk at a cost of $120M each, what about $1.2B each.. there's a lot better things we could do with the rest of our military with that money.
We don't have the expertise and industry currently to design and build something like that, so that would make it even more expensive.
If we could get a bunch of countries to go in and buy some then it might make it more reasonable, but there's already a long list of established lines out there, convincing someone to bet on a brand new untested company and industry? Not gonna happen.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Here is another part of the Avro story I forget about that is also tragic, the Iroquois engine. Also a Canadain desgin, Also highly advanced, also equally awesome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orenda_Iroquois And naturally the US thought enough of it to buy the rights. I believe it also wound up leading to the development of the engines for the Condorde.
If anyone is interested, Dan Akroyd did a produced a movie about the Avro Arrow.
I'll warn you, this movie will give you a increibly feeling of pride followed by an incredible feeling of frustration and dissapointment.
the movie was really well done, but the capabilities of the plane in that movie were pretty exaggerated.
Was the Arrow bleeding edge at the time, absolutely but at the end of the day it was pretty much a single usage high speed interceptor to knock Russian Bombers out of the air.
It wasn't going to be a stunningly great dog fighter, nor an air to ground asset in its original design.
The one thing that people forget is that at the time of its cancellation the Avro Arrow would have cost 12 million bucks per plane, which would translate to about $97 million per plane today, that's without the more costly design and manufacturing of something like the F-35.
the Arrow was a great plane for its day but it was close to double the cost of any other plane out there.
I don't think it was far fetched at the time because we had the expertise and industry to at least make it feasible.
Sure we could come up with a Canadian solution, probably a great one, if we gave it the same kind of resources as a modern fighter development takes.
But there's a reason that the UK and Italy and Denmark and Canada and a bunch of others are involved in the F-35 program rather than rolling their own.
Canada could make it's own fighters, if we wanted to increase the per unit cost by a factor of 10. People balk at a cost of $120M each, what about $1.2B each.. there's a lot better things we could do with the rest of our military with that money.
We don't have the expertise and industry currently to design and build something like that, so that would make it even more expensive.
If we could get a bunch of countries to go in and buy some then it might make it more reasonable, but there's already a long list of established lines out there, convincing someone to bet on a brand new untested company and industry? Not gonna happen.
When I look at the current social and political landscape in Canada, I find that it has been a long time since we have had a singular emblem on which to tie our dreams and identity. Almost every accomplishment over the last number of decades has been the result of singular individuals and not as a direction the country as a whole has embarked on.
I put a lot of value into something akin to what the space program was for the Americans.
If the equivalent to buying 65 F35s at approx. $138 million a piece is that we only produce 7 Arrows...
...I would be willing to bet that if on the promise that half the fleet is based out of Cold Lake, a referendum in Alberta would approve 1.2 billion in oil sands revenue (I'd love to link this to enforcement of the 35% premium that the industry has loopholed, but I digress) to go towards one plane per year...
...given a 15 year window that would put 22 Arrows in the air by the year 2029, starting with 12 by 2019 if it was all quickly approved.
And augment this with the absolute lowest cost 4th generation fighters that we can put in the air, to meet our obligations.
In terms of an absolutely massive boost to Canadian pride and identity, international reputation, and rejuvenation of a lost industry, I'd much rather have 22 Arrows in our skies than 65 F35s. Especially since the Americans are producing 2443 F35s for themselves. In the bigger picture we are a drop in the F35 bucket.
That said, the reasons that this would never happen far outweigh the reasons it could. It would take a massive amount of political will, that we haven't seen in Canada since... I don't know... Diefenbaker?
It would just be the most awesome and unifying thing that Canada has done in over 40 years or more. Instead we will just twin a highway, or buy an icebreaker that doesn't work in winter or something. That's good, too.
When I look at the current social and political landscape in Canada, I find that it has been a long time since we have had a singular emblem on which to tie our dreams and identity. Almost every accomplishment over the last number of decades has been the result of singular individuals and not as a direction the country as a whole has embarked on.
So much this. We are such a passive people it seems. We never really seem to get behind anything big as a country. It was nice to actually feel it during the Vancouver Olympics. It's one thing about the Americans I am genuinely jealous of, they are so passionate about their country and they wear it on their sleeves.
eh? i get the impression of patriotism in Canada (loving your own country) but my (negative) impression of the US is of nationalism (disliking other countries).
Just because we see American suburbia with 50 foot flags doesn't jump to me as real patriotism or pride.
Seeing the Canadian flag everywhere doesnt make me feel more or less Canadian/patriotic. It gives off more the impression of being unsecure in who and where you're from...
eh? i get the impression of patriotism in Canada (loving your own country) but my (negative) impression of the US is of nationalism (disliking other countries).
Just because we see American suburbia with 50 foot flags doesn't jump to me as real patriotism or pride.
Seeing the Canadian flag everywhere doesnt make me feel more or less Canadian/patriotic. It gives off more the impression of being unsecure in who and where you're from...
I think it simply takes a better understanding of American culture within the US. There was plenty of patriotism before 9/11, but the "superpatriot" surge following 9/11 gave people the impression of patriotism derived from xenophobia or "terrorism" paranoia. In many cases during last decade they would be correct, but given it was a fad, most of those people who threw American flags all over everything (decals, ribbons, etc.) have found other things to obsess about, probably on a quest with Alex Jones to prove Obama's birth certificate was forged from some amazing Kenyan/Martian scam artist.
Going forward with the F-35 program has been shelved for years now, pending fact finding on the program cost and alternatives, and transparency issues. Has any of this homework been done, and it just hasn't hit mainstream media, or was this decision made over a glass of cognac and a stogie in front of a giant raging fire in a palacial estate?
I recently read this article from Foxtrot Alpha about the Super Hornet and it made a hell of a lot of good points about why we should choose the F/A-18 E/F over the F-35.
It's a looong article, but here are some excerpts.
Quote:
There are about 80 CF-18s in RCAF inventory today, which is interesting as the Ottawa seeks to replace its proven Hornets with only 65 much more complicated F-35s. This leads to the following questions:
-Are 65 tactical aircraft really a relevant sized force for a nation the size of the US?
-How can such a small force adequately provide air sovereignty while also training for a multitude of missions, yet alone deploying in relevant numbers for actual combat operations?
-Will Canada be able to provide independent training for aircrews as it does today with such a tiny F-35 force structure?
All these questions can basically be rolled into one larger question: Is there more value in numbers than extreme capabilities considering that such a large nation will have roughly the same amount of tactical aircraft as a single Carrier Air Wing at surge capacity? In fact, Oregon alone will have almost as many tactical fighters as all of Canada!
...
The Super Hornet, with its low acquisition cost (less than half the cost of a single F-35) and much lower operating costs could allow for Canada to maintain its organic crew training program based out of CFB Cold Lake, Alberta. For decades the 410th Tactical Fighter Operational Training Squadron has become notorious for training some of the best fighter pilots in the world under Canada's own terms. The loss of such a capability would give up a fair portion of Canada's sovereignty over their pilot corps and their unique air power doctrine.
...
The Super Hornet was designed to operate in horrible conditions, and the fact that it packs a pair of the most reliable fighter-jet engines around, the GE-F414, means that it retains the same hardy qualities that made Canada pick the Hornet originally. RCAF officials knew the New Fighter Aircraft would be operating out of austere and freezing airfields and flying over extremely remote areas where two engines could mean the difference between life and death.
...
It all comes down to what a nation is willing to pay for what level of "solution" they actually need. For instance, if the Super Hornet Advanced is an 80% solution to the F-35's 100% solution, but costs half that of the F-35, is that extra 20% of capability worth double the acquisition and operating costs?
...
Then there is the whole numbers issue, wouldn't Canada be better served by 130 Advanced Super Hornets (approx $60M per copy) than 65 F-35s (approx $120M per copy)?
...
Other alternative force structures on Canada's same budget are even more enticing, such as immediately procuring 80 Advanced Super Hornets to replace the RCAF's geriatric CF-18s at $65M per copy, and retain $3.8B for eventually procuring a top-of-the-line stealthy semi-autonomous UCAV for deep-penetrating strike and reconnaissance missions. For 36 UCAVs at $75M a pop (including shared ground control stations), that would equal $2.7B. This leaves over $1B for a squadron of EA-18G Growlers to provide outstanding jamming, electronic attack and suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) for the entire fleet.
...
Although the F-35 may be the most expensive fighter option available to Canada today it is far from the most suitable for their unique needs and budgetary constraints. [The F/A-18 EF Super Hornet] A cocktail of proven and highly advanced systems, which are fall well within Canada's budgetary restrictions, is the right solution to their 21st century air combat needs.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
I think that the best argument for going another way than the F35s might be that the best jet available, and the one that suits our needs, is the F22, and the Americans won't sell that to us, meaning that we will always be a generation behind them.
If we are going to be engaged in establishing our Arctic sovereignty against the Americans and Russians, who both can claim a jet with higher effectiveness than our F35s, maybe we should come up with a better strategy. And if that strategy is diplomacy (it is) then why are we spending so much money?
If we purchase the F35, we should at least sell our CF18s to Denmark, so we can claim air superiority over Greenland.
-----
I thanked the above post because there are many better options than the one that is being forced upon us. At this point I'd rather have a giant fleet of cesnas, each with a one use rocket dangling underneath. 20, 000 of those might give someone pause.
I've never bought the Super Hornet argument based on the oh well it should be an easy transition because its a you know. Hornet.
Its got completely different avionics, a different power plant, its a larger airframe with different flight characteristics.
Its not like you can take a F-18 pilot and throw him in a super hornet and its fine.
Its not like you can take regular f-18 parts and toss it into this new jet.
As well, its at best a transitional fighter, that's fine if your America where you can afford to go through multiple purchases. The Standard for Canada seems to be a 30 year purchasing barrier.
Strategically Canada is actually downsizing their airforce, going from I think 85 fighters down to a airforce with about 60 fighters in it. Because of that you need the maximum effective fighter. Like it or not that's the F-35. while the F-18 is low observable for example the F-35 is stealth and next generation in terms of interoperability.
As well people ask me all the time about the one engine versus two argument and its pretty irrelevant to me, Its getting fairly rare that you see engine failures in flight with advanced single engine fighters. As well the engine replacement on the F-35 is suppossed to be fairly quick.
I like the Super Hornet. But in the case of a very small airforce that's expected to hold on to an airframe for multiple decades and can frankly be upgraded to fight future wars, a plane like the F-35 is probably the best bet. You can't go the budget option in my mind.
Also if you look at the 1977 purchase of the CF-18 at $35,000,000 per copy, in todays dollars that's something like $128 million dollars
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Last edited by CaptainCrunch; 11-08-2014 at 09:03 AM.
I've never bought the Super Hornet argument based on the oh well it should be an easy transition because its a you know. Hornet.
Its got completely different avionics, a different power plant, its a larger airframe with different flight characteristics.
Its not like you can take a F-18 pilot and throw him in a super hornet and its fine.
Its not like you can take regular f-18 parts and toss it into this new jet.
As well, its at best a transitional fighter, that's fine if your America where you can afford to go through multiple purchases. The Standard for Canada seems to be a 30 year purchasing barrier.
Strategically Canada is actually downsizing their airforce, going from I think 85 fighters down to a airforce with about 60 fighters in it. Because of that you need the maximum effective fighter. Like it or not that's the F-35. while the F-18 is low observable for example the F-35 is stealth and next generation in terms of interoperability.
As well people ask me all the time about the one engine versus two argument and its pretty irrelevant to me, Its getting fairly rare that you see engine failures in flight with advanced single engine fighters. As well the engine replacement on the F-35 is suppossed to be fairly quick.
I like the Super Hornet. But in the case of a very small airforce that's expected to hold on to an airframe for multiple decades and can frankly be upgraded to fight future wars, a plane like the F-35 is probably the best bet. You can't go the budget option in my mind.
Also if you look at the 1977 purchase of the CF-18 at $35,000,000 per copy, in todays dollars that's something like $128 million dollars
Stealth is becoming less and less of a factor as militaries are using different bands of RADAR to detect stealth aircraft. The F22 was tracked by French RADAR years ago as it flew to the Farnborough airshow. Stealth is not infallible and when you strip that strength away from the F35 and you are left with a plane that can't run, can't turn, can't climb and can't dog fight. It's payload is only better than the Gripen, it's single engine has been catching fire lately, produces a massive IR signature that makes it a great target for even older generation heat seeking missiles and can't be transported on the Greyhound transport plane to US carriers.
Next generation anti radiation missiles like the Meteor cannot fit in its bays leaving it stuck with older missiles like the AMRAAM. The carrier version suffers from a weak tail hook (something canadian jets need for northern operations), and the RADAR absorbent skin is easily damaged by salt water and cold climates. The proposed parachute pod increases its RADAR cross section and reduces range by increasing drag.
Worst of all, the F35 relies on the F22 for cover during operations as it is terrible at air superiority missions (that's from General Hostage himself). The ratio for hours flying to hours grounded for maintenance is the worst out of the fighters competing for replacement. That means more time parked on the Tarmac, less time in the sky compared to other fighters. Canada would lose its ability to train its own pilots and would rely on US training instead.
The F35 is an expensive, slow, sluggish lemon. The increased communications abilities are a myth, all NATO aircraft can communicate with each other with the updated comms suite data links except for the F22 as it has its own comms suite and must relay through a third party. The recent campaigns in Libya and Ukraine have demonstrated interoperability between coalition aircraft of all kinds.
65 aircraft are not enough, especially given the downtime of the aircraft and attrition.
Finally, the economic returns are not great. Nations that were on the fence like Japan received big financial incentives to get on board while small partners like Canada did not. Two other aircraft manufacturers Saab and Dassault are offering full data codes and the ability to build our own aircraft. This is beneficial on numerous levels especially with allowing Canadian aviation firms the ability to build an aircraft already developed and gain expertise as well as altering the aircraft to Canadian specs through the data codes.
I've never bought the Super Hornet argument based on the oh well it should be an easy transition because its a you know. Hornet.
Its got completely different avionics, a different power plant, its a larger airframe with different flight characteristics.
Its not like you can take a F-18 pilot and throw him in a super hornet and its fine.
Its not like you can take regular f-18 parts and toss it into this new jet.
As well, its at best a transitional fighter, that's fine if your America where you can afford to go through multiple purchases. The Standard for Canada seems to be a 30 year purchasing barrier.
Strategically Canada is actually downsizing their airforce, going from I think 85 fighters down to a airforce with about 60 fighters in it. Because of that you need the maximum effective fighter. Like it or not that's the F-35. while the F-18 is low observable for example the F-35 is stealth and next generation in terms of interoperability.
As well people ask me all the time about the one engine versus two argument and its pretty irrelevant to me, Its getting fairly rare that you see engine failures in flight with advanced single engine fighters. As well the engine replacement on the F-35 is suppossed to be fairly quick.
I like the Super Hornet. But in the case of a very small airforce that's expected to hold on to an airframe for multiple decades and can frankly be upgraded to fight future wars, a plane like the F-35 is probably the best bet. You can't go the budget option in my mind.
Also if you look at the 1977 purchase of the CF-18 at $35,000,000 per copy, in todays dollars that's something like $128 million dollars
It was a little shocking to me but I read somewhere that the F-16 (single engine) has had less engine failures than that all three of the F-14,F-15 and F-18 combined. And there are more F-16's built as well.
USA only
F-14 = 728 built
F-15 = 1523 built
F-18 = 1842 built
