Canada plans to buy NEW Fighter Jets - F-35 reported chosen

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As a pilot, former CF Reserves officer, and total aviation geek, I don't disagree that the F-35 is the best fighter available, but is it overkill for our needs? What are the CF's mission requirements for a manned jet fighter? Is there more than one aircraft that meets those requirements? If so, which one has the lowest total cost of ownership (not the lowest initial purchase price)? If the F-35 is the only plane capable of meeting our needs, then going ahead with this purchase makes perfect sense. How do we know that Canadian taxpayers are getting the best possible deal without an open bidding process, though?

Super Hornets, for example, aren't as sexy as F-35s, but they're more than $35 million cheaper per aircraft (according to wikipedia). Likewise, the per aircraft price of the Eurofighter Typhoon is approximately $25 million less (also from wikipedia) than the Lightning II. Do either the Super Hornet or Typhoon meet or exceed all the operational requirements for Canada's next manned fighter? True, they're both 4.5 generation aircraft, but does our air force actually need the latest and greatest 5th generation fighter? The last time we upgraded our fighter fleet, we opted for F-18s over the superior F-14s and F-15s because they were much better value while still being capable of meeting our mission requirements.

The F-18 was a better value at the time because of its multi-role capability, ease of maintenance, semi rough landing capability. The F-15 is a bear to maintain and update, and its a more effective ground attack platform then it is an overall multi role fighter. The F-14 is a pure dog fighter, and if you want to use it to full capability you need to use the unique and very expensive phoenix long range missile.

While the Super Hornet is a nice jet and multi role, it can't out perform the F-35, combine that with the F-35's stealth capabilities and ability to do a lot of things, and the F-35 becomes the superior choice for a small airforce where aircraft and pilots are at a premium.

Pass on the Eurojet, it will be obsolete when we get it as will a lot of the other choices. To me we buy front line modern fighters once every 30 to 40 years, so the F-35 to me is not a bad bargain.

Plus there are economic benefits to buying the F-35, there are no benefits to buying another platform due to our part in the development of the plane.

RE-opening to bidding now is stupid because the bid process will add years that we don't have on the f-18.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DemolitionCat

I don't believe the fixed price talk for a second. Why can't we and the Brits have the C++ code, then?

Again, we need this stealth for what? Would our sovereignty and economic interests not be better served by saving on the F35 for a more capable Coast Guard?

Which is more combat capable and faster to respond the F-35 or the Coast Guard.

Which has a longer, even land based aircraft project power better then a coast guard or frigate navy which is what we have.

[MarchHare]

The F-15 is a bear to maintain and update, and its a more effective ground attack platform then it is an overall multi role fighter.

That's not correct. The F-15 was originally designed to counter the Soviet MIG-25 in aerial combat, an aircraft whose capabilities NATO incorrectly over-rated. A later variant of the F-15 was designed specifically for the ground attack role (F-15E Strike Eagle), but at the time Canada selected the F-18, there wasn't a better air-to-air fighter in the world than the F-15. It was first and foremost an air superiority fighter with secondary ground attack capabilities.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

To be fair, the stealth on the F-35 is constantly overexaggerated. The stealth on the F-35 is nowhere near as good as the F-22. We also don't know when exactly to expect deliveries on the planes either since Lockheed Martin is more than two years behind schedule on the program and counting.

I don't know if it's over exaggerated, but it definitely isn't as good as the F-22; there's no way the US would export their best stuff. Not the only factor for sure, but shouldn't be ignored either.

Originally Posted by FlameOn

LM also has a long history of cost overruns and missed production date targets. Those extra few years that we may get out of the a super hornet might just be how long we actually wait to get the F-35. I'm not a huge fan of the F-35 but given what's on the market it's currently the best fit for Canada's defence needs long term, if we get them any time soon that is.

Heh, I would say aerospace in general has a long history of cost overruns and missed production dates.

I actually kind of prefer the Super Hornet vs. the F-35, and given the high costs of 5th gen aircraft plus the global economy it's not inconceivable that 4.5 gen aircraft will end up in service a lot longer.

But the cool factor of the new fancy stuff speaks to me

[photon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's not correct. The F-15 was originally designed to counter the Soviet MIG-25 in aerial combat, an aircraft whose capabilities NATO incorrectly over-rated. A later variant of the F-15 was designed specifically for the ground attack role (F-15E Strike Eagle), but at the time Canada selected the F-18, there wasn't a better air-to-air fighter in the world than the F-15. It was first and foremost an air superiority fighter with secondary ground attack capabilities.

I think he probably just mistyped, I'm pretty sure CC knows the F-15 was air superiority first.

[DemolitionCat]

Nobody can buy the F22. If you believe we're going to be fighting supersonic epic air battles with Russia, India and China over Canada as part of a NATO conflict then I guess you would believe the F35 is in our best interests.

[Patrick]

Why do we need military really. I dont see us being attacked anytime soon and the need to invade someone else isnt there either. On other news, we need military to bend to the US and helpthem when they attack other countries.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The F-14 is a pure dog fighter, and if you want to use it to full capability you need to use the unique and very expensive phoenix long range missile.

If you wanted to use the F-14 to its full capability, it's the airborne AEW&C aircraft supporting the F-14's that you really need. The F-14 was designed as more of a weapons platform than anything else. That it turned out to be a good dogfighter was mostly a bonus.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't know if it's over exaggerated, but it definitely isn't as good as the F-22; there's no way the US would export their best stuff. Not the only factor for sure, but shouldn't be ignored either.

Heh, I would say aerospace in general has a long history of cost overruns and missed production dates.

I actually kind of prefer the Super Hornet vs. the F-35, and given the high costs of 5th gen aircraft plus the global economy it's not inconceivable that 4.5 gen aircraft will end up in service a lot longer.

But the cool factor of the new fancy stuff speaks to me

We'll see the cool stuff soon enough. The Russians and Chinese are kicking it in high gear. The T-50 is supposed to be an other 5 years off and the J-XX is another 7 years off. Both are said to incoporate stealth and AESA radar so 4.5 fighters will be more or less obsolete at that point.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Why do we need military really. I dont see us being attacked anytime soon and the need to invade someone else isnt there either. On other news, we need military to bend to the US and helpthem when they attack other countries.

I love this post. Take a pot shot at the US, but expect them to protect us. At least thats what it appears you're inferring.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by photon

One downside with going with a Super Hornet or Typhoon is that we'll reach this point (old airframe, inferior avionics, etc) sooner than with the F-35

I can't find the rated airframe hours for the F-35 online - is it rated for more airframe hours than the Super Hornet?

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Why do we need military really. I dont see us being attacked anytime soon and the need to invade someone else isnt there either. On other news, we need military to bend to the US and helpthem when they attack other countries.

To maintain our independence to a degree. Given that the Russians started buzzing us again with their long range strategic bombers and them claiming parts of the continental shelf (and resources) traditionally considered Canadian, we need something to deter the countries like that from walking all over us. The US has their own interests that may or may nor run parallel to ours and we can't always count on them.

Mind you, you do have a point about us getting drawn into too many of their conflicts.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I can't find the rated airframe hours for the F-35 online - is it rated for more airframe hours than the Super Hornet?

He means the design will be older/obsolete, not the life span.

[Patrick]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I love this post. Take a pot shot at the US, but expect them to protect us. At least thats what it appears you're inferring.

Protect us from what???

[burn_this_city]

Other countries infringing on our sovereign rights to resources and land. The Arctic has a lot natural resources that other countries would like to claim as their own.

[DemolitionCat]

Which will be defined by geology, continued use, self determination more than fast jets.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Other countries infringing on our sovereign rights to resources and land. The Arctic has a lot natural resources that other countries would like to claim as their own.

I don't want to give the impression that I agree with Patrick's post above (I don't), but to play devil's advocate, do you really think we'd allow ourselves to get into a shooting war with Russia over Arctic resources?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't want to give the impression that I agree with Patrick's post above (I don't), but to play devil's advocate, do you really think we'd allow ourselves to get into a shooting war with Russia over Arctic resources?

Yes and we would win.

I mean we're probably do as much as possible to diplomatically avoid it but we have to be ready.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't want to give the impression that I agree with Patrick's post above (I don't), but to play devil's advocate, do you really think we'd allow ourselves to get into a shooting war with Russia over Arctic resources?

No, but if you have no military and they do, who's going to have more negotiating leverage.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I don't want to give the impression that I agree with Patrick's post above (I don't), but to play devil's advocate, do you really think we'd allow ourselves to get into a shooting war with Russia over Arctic resources?

Who knows what the political situation might be down the road? I can't really see it happening today. Obviously its impossible for a country our size to properly protect the northern border. But its important to have some semblance of a military to deter border countries from making land grabs as resource locations become known.