Which Fighter Jet should Canada choose?

**Thomas Hinderks** · 22-12-2016, 03:43 PM

Ustauk

That is one of many useful options for CF-18 and Super Hornets as (eventually) newer aircraft are phased in ... but there are other uses.

Fighter trainers is the first I would think of ... right now we use the subsonic "Hawk" which is also getting long in the tooth ... overhauled/adapter CF-18s/Super Hornets would be a better transition aircraft.

Home defense is another that aircraft like the CF-18 could be overhauled and tailored to. Patrol, observation, fast reaction search and rescue with underwing SCAT packs.

These types of adaptations would reduce hours on the "Next Gen" fighters, improve our overall defense capability and in the case of the Super Hornets they will remain viable bomb trucks for aq long long time to come.

65 New fighters is no where near enough for a country the size of Canada ... this is one way to improve the situation and create Canadian jobs and technology.

IMO

**Ustauk** · 22-12-2016, 04:20 PM

^
Agreed, Thomas. There's plenty of life and uses left for both the original Hornet and new Super Hornet airframes, the Growler being just one. We should definitely get tandem two seaters for both training and Growler conversion; as of now the F35 doesn't even have a two seat variant for training (though the Israelis may develop a two seat variant). Plus the Tudors the Snowbirds fly are getting up their in age; I can see them getting first Hornet, and then Super Hornets for the team as replacments. There's even a tanker variant of the Superhornet; you could use that to extend loiter time of other Superhornets on patrol, or have them act as fuel trucks for stealth mode/internal store F35s to top up to full before going into a hot zone.

According to Tacairnet.com, the U.S. Navy is planning to divest itself of its remaining Hornets and oldest Superhornets, and wants to order several new squadrons of Superhornets. Reuters says the Marines will be getting the Hornets, but Tacairnet speculates the older Superhornets could be refit and sent our way. Whether we're getting refurbished Superhornets or piggy-backing new ones on the Navy's order, the price of our eighteen fighters could be less then has previously speculated. And having the Navy running numbers of both fighters will give us a partner to develop doctrine for jointly running the F35 and Super Hornet.

**Thomas Hinderks** · 22-12-2016, 05:42 PM

Ustauk

We seem to be on the same page.

I have also thought that if we are adding Super Hornets they should be 2 seaters with the ability to switch to Growlers and acting as advanced trainers for their replacement.

I wouldn't recommend using the Hornets for the Snowbirds though. Too expensive to operate and using smaller jets lets them keep larger formations and keep the show in front of and close in to the crowd.
Something they are absolutely the best at. IMO

Good call on Super Hornets as tankers though ... forgot they have the add on kit and in that function they would work well as range extenders tactically for their replacements and for Northern patrols if kept on (with maybe some CF-18 single seaters) as a home defense fighter.

T

**Ustauk** · 22-12-2016, 06:34 PM

Thomas, any thoughts on the Textron Scorpion for the Snowbirds? Its still under development, but it uses off the shelf parts, and the size seems a good fit.

**norwoodguy** · 23-12-2016, 03:07 AM

Trump is, if nothing else, very entertaining. I love his tweet from yesterday:

Based on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have asked Boeing to price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!

It would be hilarious to see the USAF being forced to accept naval fighters into their squadrons.

**moahunter** · 23-12-2016, 07:13 AM

^he is doing what someone should have done years ago, both with Lockheed (f35) and Boeing (Air Force one). Drive for a proper contract with a more manageable scope. He called out how government workers give favourable contracts in the knowledge one day they will get jobs at those companies they are giving the contracts too. Its much the same way city councillors approve totally uneccesary new suburbs in cities with empty cores, knowing it will one day get them a nice pay back job at the real estate developer.

**Thomas Hinderks** · 23-12-2016, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ustauk

Thomas, any thoughts on the Textron Scorpion for the Snowbirds? Its still under development, but it uses off the shelf parts, and the size seems a good fit.

More important than the Snowbirds it may be a good candidate to replace both the Harvard2 and the Hawk as an advanced trainer ... which according to tradition would lead to it's usse with the Snowbirds.

But this part of our conversation leads to a great point ... so many of our aviation our DND aviation assets are aging out. The above mentioned trainers, the Aurora, the Dash 8s in use as both NAV trainers and SAR aircraft as well as the helicopter trainers and that is before we look at ships, land based equipment assets and the overall small size (vs area and population) of our armed forces.

The whole system is is dire need or an overhaul and clear long term direction or we will be hitting a series of crisis in the not very distant future.

IMO

**moahunter** · 05-01-2017, 11:45 AM

Its not about what the military needs, its about not embarrassing Trudeau, that's why the competition is delayed...

India and Bulgaria have launched competitions to buy new fighter jets, but unlike Canada they expect the process to take just a couple of years.

The speedy purchase of much-needed jets for those countries has raised questions about why it will take the Canadian government more than 10 years to replace the military’s aging fleet of CF-18s.

India announced Tuesday it expects to choose a supplier for 200 planes and sign a deal by 2020, with a request for bids going out in 2018. In December, Bulgaria announced it was seeking bids for up to eight jets, with more to follow. The winning bid for that program will be selected in 2018.

By contrast, the Liberal government expects it will take until the end of the 2020s — or perhaps even until 2032 — before it can acquire replacements for its CF-18s.

...

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has previously said his government would not buy the F-35 stealth fighter that the Conservatives wanted, claiming last year the F-35 was not working. But U.S. military units are now using the F-35s and Canadian government insiders concede there is concern in the Liberal ranks the plane could win the competition and be selected the best replacement for the CF-18s — a result that would be very embarrassing for Trudeau, they add.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...-them-10-years

**moahunter** · 31-01-2017, 11:52 AM

So, it seems that the Superhornets the Liberals are sole sourcing, a plane designed almost 30 years ago now, may in fact cost more than a state of the art 5th generation F35:

A cost breakdown of the Super Hornets is provided in U.S. Department of Defence estimates:

■The base price for a Super Hornet, according to U.S. Department of Defence 2015 budget estimates, was $85 million ($65 million US) per aircraft.

■On top of that, there is what's known as government-furnished equipment, which can be anything from engines to radar and other electronics, depending on what the air force says it needs. That could add $26.2 million ($20 million US) per fighter — although those fees can sometimes be negotiated.

■Washington also levies what is known as a foreign military sales charge of about 3.5 per cent, but other costs for research and development could boost U.S. service charges to as high 11 per cent, according to Pentagon records.

"What an airplane costs depends upon configuration, timing of deliveries and quantities. The U.S. government documents are a good reflection," said Boeing's Gillian.

That all means the final cost of each individual Super Hornet could range from $115 million ($88 million US) to $123 million ($94 million US), bringing a total purchase price of between $1.9 billion ($1.5 billion US) and $2.1 billion ($1.6 billion US) for 18 jets.

...

Lockheed Martin said last week it was confident it would soon get the price of an F-35 down to $111 million ($85 million US) per plane. Canada would not have to pay the foreign military sales charge because it has already contributed toward the development of the project.

Much of the public debate in Canada has revolved around the enormous cost of the F-35. In fact, the Liberal government's distaste for the stealth fighter was formed partly by the former Conservative government's refusal to be more transparent about the price tag.

Perry said it would be ironic if Trump succeeded in quickly driving down the cost to the point where both fighters were competitively priced.

"If Trump is able to gets some extra savings out of Lockheed … my guess is you're looking at a 10 per cent cost difference [between the Super Hornet and the F-35]," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/figh...nets-1.3956306

Where is the outrage from the left about supposedly "un-needed" $100m jets now that Mr Selfie has decided its a good idea?

**moahunter** · 10-02-2017, 09:17 AM

Scores a 15:1 kill ratio. Oh well, losing 15 of our F18's and superhornets (rough equivalent of F16) to each F35, a plane that now costs about the same as a Superhornet, isn't that bad is it?

Over 110 sorties, the fleet of 13 F-35A jets (the Air Force-dedicated version of the fighter) posted a simulated kill ratio of 15:1, according to Aviation Week, meaning only one blue aircraft was shot down for every 15 reds the F-35 threw to the ground.

The sadists running the drill went hard after the newcomer, using advanced tactics and targeting and jamming technologies, and deploying extra “enemy” F-16s (in adversary-appropriate camouflage). No match, apparently, for the plane’s advanced data-gathering and sensing technologies (like a $400,000 helmet). That didn’t just boost the airmen in the F-35s—pilots flying F-22 Raptors and older F-18s and F-16s enjoyed improved situational awareness, too. Defense News reported that the F-35s stuck around after unloading all their weapons, so other aircraft could crib data from their scanners.

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/troubl...hest-test-yet/

**bpeters** · 10-02-2017, 02:35 PM

Since we're cherry-picking the article...
"Even if it had flunked Red Flag, the plane would have lived on..... because it has safely reached “too big to fail” territory."

Nice having that safety net.

**bpeters** · 10-02-2017, 02:39 PM

and this.

“The simulation didn’t prove that it’s the ultimate dogfighter or has the most powerful missiles, far from it. But it proved that when everything is working it’s a formidable system.”

Formidable isn't ultimate. Proven time and time again in military. eg. Ford class carrier doesn't spell the end of Nimitz class.

**Edmonton PRT** · 10-02-2017, 03:07 PM

Not a single missile was launched so the whole thing is just a simulation. What is the probability of a kill? The techno geeks have a field day but the only real test is a shooting war. In combat conditions, how many of the F-35's can they keep in the air with all the high tech stuff operating? What level of electronic jamming by the enemy and the effects of a possible EM pulse from a nuclear detonation will affect the fighter and weapon systems?

**Thomas Hinderks** · 14-02-2017, 02:37 PM

Laurie Hawn is very good at not pulling punches and in his latest review of the SuperHornet addition, while polite, has created enemies and cost him personally.

I like Laurie and having chatted with him many times we agree on most things regarding Canada's air force, numbers, needs etc. Pretty much everything except the F-35 ... he is a huge advocate, I still think it's the wrong solution.

That said here is his lasted letter on facebook re: the Superhornet sole source and frankly I agree with most of it (except the F-35). He has hit all the issues, offered a solution I was not aware of and brought to attention once again the questions surrounding the "capability gap".

He will be on Ryan Jespersen's show on CHED tomorrow morning as well.

This is worth a read if you have been following this thread ... again I appreciate Laurie pulling back the covers on the NFA issue and in spite of personal cost the fact he has stood his ground.

https://www.facebook.com/laurie.hawn...87102452165792

IMO

**moahunter** · 14-02-2017, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

Not a single missile was launched so the whole thing is just a simulation.

That's how jets are evaluated outside of actual combat, through real life combat simulations with the planes flying. I expect the F35 will be very similar to the F15, the first real fighter that effectively relied on electronics / missiles ahead of dogfighting (and the technology has moved a long way since it entered into service), once in combat it will be devastating. Its interesting that the F35 planes even massively improved the performance of prior generation jets which would tap into their sensors. The price has come down too, its comparable in price to a superhornet (an old design Naval bomb truck), and will only get cheaper as the base development locks down even more and production ramps up. But unlike superhornet, which might at best have one more production run, its going to be continually updated and enahanced for the next 60 years, it won't only fly for 12 years.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...sting-billions

The Super Hornet jets the Liberal government is spending billions of dollars to purchase could be flying for as little as 12 to 15 years before they are taken out of service.

There had been some suggestions by analysts and, privately by military officers, that the Super Hornets could be kept flying, along with the new aircraft the government intends to purchase as a replacement for the CF-18s in the late 2020s.

But the operational life of the Super Hornets, expected to arrive sometime after 2019, will be limited, unlike the current CF-18s that have been flying for more than three decades, the Liberals confirm.

...

The Defence Research and Development Canada report recommended against the purchase of such “bridging” aircraft to deal with gaps in capability. “The costs involved with bridging options make them unsuitable for filling capability gaps in the short term,” according to the report. “Any short-term investment results in disproportionately high costs during the bridging period.”

**Thomas Hinderks** · 14-02-2017, 04:22 PM

its going to be continually updated and enahanced for the next 60 years

I love these comments ... 60 years ... Bull Shizen.

Air frame lives are based on flight cycles and hours of use. All modern aircraft have a useful life, yes even airliners and military aircraft. Sure you can stretch air frame lives to an extent (as has been done with every fighter Canada has had since the Sabre) but 60 years ... gimme a break.
dom
60 years from now none of the current F-35s (including those delivered in the next 10 years) will be around so can we quit with the 60 year crap. You might get 30 ... tad more if the hours are kept down, but with a projected 65 aircraft to cover what took 130+ not long ago good luck. It is far more likely that the hours will get burned up far faster as so few aircraft attempt to cover ALL of the domestic and international deployment demands.

IMO

**moahunter** · 14-02-2017, 04:26 PM

^http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...nned/82224282/

WASHINGTON — The F-35 joint strike fighter will fly until 2070, reflecting a decision by the US armed services to extend the operational life of the fleet by six years.

All three services that operate the F-35 — the US Air Force, US Navy and US Marine Corps — increased the total flight hours for the fleet by 1.6 million, F-35 Joint Program Office Chief Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan told reporters March 24 at the Pentagon. Of the total, the Air Force added 1.3 million flight hours, while the Navy added 300,000 flight hours, according to the JPO.

The Air Force extended the life of each F-35A jet by two years, adding six years in total to the program, according to the JPO. This effectively means the JSF will fly until 2070, instead of 2064 as planned.

This extension translated into an addition of $45 billion in operating and support (O&S) costs to the 2015 estimate, masking a 2 to 4 percent drop in real O&S costs, Bogdan stressed. Without this extension, F-35 life cycle O&S costs would have decreased by about $22 billion from the 2014 estimate, he said

And even if only half that, a lot better than the 12 years from the multi billion dollar Superhornet deal.

**Edmonton PRT** · 14-02-2017, 05:10 PM

60 years or 600

It's salesmen talk.

Everyone will be dead who were involved in the original order.

**Thomas Hinderks** · 14-02-2017, 05:23 PM

Yeah right Moa ... spreading capitalization and budget costs.

Lets try real world, the CF-18

Total purchased 138
In service now 76 (functional with upgrades and life extensions)
Lost in service 15 (approx from ejection records) http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/A..._18_hornet.htm
out of service 47 ((rotated out or timed out being used for parts)

Now the CF-18 was first deployed to 410 squadron late 1982, there were delays after that which kept full deployment back for a couple years (exactly how long depends on source I am listing a middle number) so lets say 1984-1985 for full deployment.

So if they reach the projected 2025 that's 41 years. To get that there have been 3 life extensions (if memory serves), multiple upgrades and I'd hate to guess how many overhauls.

Even with that the only way we have made it this far is because of the rotation schedule that was started in the 90's (30-40% of the fleet was kept parked and rotated in/out to keep total ops hours down), and still we have 47 now permanently parted due to exceeding even the life extended hours and fatigue. Other than a few to museums the rest are being used for spares.

The F-35 will not have the luxury of the rotation program with only 65 aircraft so it will be time ex operational hours much faster based on the current highly, highly reduced operational schedule.

Now lets consider operational demands ... even modern fighters have a tough time meeting a 70% operational schedule.
With the highly depleted CF-18 fleet that means at any time there are only 53 in service total
Of that 53 we seem pretty consistent in having around 12 on overseas deployment, so that leaves 41 for domestic duty.

41 aircraft to cover the 2nd largest country by area in the world and the longest coastline if I recall correctly ... talk about a totally inadequate fighter force.

Now how does it look with the purchase of 65 F-35s
45 in service at any given time
12 deployed over seas
33 left for domestic duty

What a friggin joke ... doesn't matter what we buy.

If we actually want to have some reasonable ability to patrol our borders, meet our NATO/NORAD commitments and currency/training requirements we need 3 to 4 times what we are talking about or why the heck are we bothering. It's not the fault of the personnel ... while a tiny force among the best in the world flying old iron.

If getting adequate numbers means a mix of some 5th gen for deployment with NATO and to meet NORAD requirements and older 4th gen for domestic service and advanced trainers so be it.

Otherwise quit kidding ourselves and save the money.

This has become quite sickening and we have become a joke as an airforce. We are having a heck of time retaining pilots/technician, gee I wonder why?

IMO It's 1936-1937 all over again only the world is much more dangerous.

**Edmonton PRT** · 14-02-2017, 06:47 PM

Thank you Thomas for pouring cold water on moahunter.

You make a clear statement of the reality of this farce. Military hardware is becoming so unaffordable and so high tech that they spend more time being serviced and being upgraded than being useful. The defense contractors are like ink jet printer salesmen and know that the real money is in the parts and service over the decades.

Even the United States are not replacing their fleet of B-52's until 2040 or beyond even though they will be 80 years old by then.

**Thomas Hinderks** · 14-02-2017, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

Thank you Thomas for pouring cold water on moahunter.

You make a clear statement of the reality of this farce. Military hardware is becoming so unaffordable and so high tech that they spend more time being serviced and being upgraded than being useful. The defense contractors are like ink jet printer salesmen and know that the real money is in the parts and service over the decades.

Even the United States are not replacing their fleet of B-52's until 2040 or beyond even though they will be 80 years old by then.

Thanks Edmonton PRT

But I don't completely agree with the affordability part ... (not directed at Edmonton PRT directly)

Our commitment to NATO is and has been since as far back as I can remember ... to spend 2% of our GDP on our own military per year so we can be prepared in the event of conflict.

2% of 1.82 Trillion USD (2013) or $36,400,000,000 USD or $47,684,000,000 CDN ... I think I have the math right

We actually spend less than 1/2 of that and that is only because of the spending pushes in the Harper era.

That is correct Canada fails to meet it's agreed on NATO commitment by 1/2, 50% or another way... we fail by half. Some commitment.

If we actually spent what we had agreed to MOST of our shortfalls in equipment, infrastructure and personnel would not exist.

Adding to the problem is we have been doing this for decades and the problem is now critical in many areas. Talk about a National Infrastructure deficit and International commitment embarrassment.

And ya wonder why we have a problem. (not you personally Edmonton PRT)

IMO

**Thomas Hinderks** · 16-02-2017, 10:24 AM

Well seems we do need to get our act together on our air force and all the other branches.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...fence-spending

Seems the free ride is over and we will need to be much more responsible for our own defense.

IMO

**moahunter** · 27-02-2017, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

Now how does it look with the purchase of 65 F-35s
45 in service at any given time
12 deployed over seas
33 left for domestic duty

What a friggin joke ... doesn't matter what we buy.

I never said 65 was the right number, I'd like to see us buy a lot more. I think its pretty stupid though to buy a handful of Superhornets, it doesn't make any sense at all, its just a political decision. It will be a highly expensive (because small order) acquisition of a plane on one of its last production runs, if not its last. If Liberals think Superhornet, a Naval bomb truck, is the right aircraft for Canada, then lets go out and buy a proper order of them, order 100 of them or more. I'd much rather we purchase though, the plane that the US Airforce is going to be flying, and upgrading, for the next 60 years, the plane that just showed a 15-1 kill ratio in real world flight exercises, for what is a very similar price.

**Ustauk** · 27-02-2017, 03:40 PM

I know the US Navy is sending a number of hits Superhornets for refit. I wonder if the Liberal's plan is to flog a "deal" on the refit fighters, while the Navy gets new-build fighters straight from Boeing. I just hope if that is the case, its not the same kind of "deal" as we got on the Brit's Oberon class subs

**Thomas Hinderks** · 27-02-2017, 04:15 PM

I never said 65 was the right number, I'd like to see us buy a lot more. I think its pretty stupid though to buy a handful of Superhornets,

After running the numbers, looking at the fighter forces deployed by much, much smaller countries to cover land mass and coast lines a mere fraction of Canada's the whole process is a joke and pointless.

Either we want a fighter force or we do not, either we actually intend to meet our commitments or we do not. Period, everything else is a waste of time, pointless and embarrassing.

IMO shut it down

**moahunter** · 19-05-2017, 08:27 AM

So, it seems we are seeing the real reason for this token 18 aircraft, and super expensive, Superhornet purchase. It wasn't to acquire the right plane for the Canadian military, it was to provide leverage if Boeing went after Bombardier. Its not about the right aircraft, or the mission, its just about politics, which is the long sad history of the Liberal party and the military.

On Thursday, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said the allegations are unhelpful to ongoing trade negotiations.

"The aerospace industries of Canada and the United States are highly integrated and support good, middle class jobs on both sides of the border," the minister said.

"We strongly disagree with the U.S. Department of Commerce's decision."

Freeland's statement also added that Ottawa is now "reviewing current military procurement that relates to Boeing."

Military officials and defence industry representatives contacted by The Canadian Press on Thursday were united in assuming that Freeland's warning related to Ottawa's planned purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornets to temporarily replace its aging fleet of CF-18s, a deal that could be worth up to $2 billion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bomb...tawa-1.4123209

**Dave** · 19-05-2017, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by moahunter

So, it seems we are seeing the real reason for this token 18 aircraft, and super expensive, Superhornet purchase. It wasn't to acquire the right plane for the Canadian military, it was to provide leverage if Boeing went after Bombardier. Its not about the right aircraft, or the mission, its just about politics, which is the long sad history of the Liberal party and the military.

On Thursday, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said the allegations are unhelpful to ongoing trade negotiations.

"The aerospace industries of Canada and the United States are highly integrated and support good, middle class jobs on both sides of the border," the minister said.

"We strongly disagree with the U.S. Department of Commerce's decision."

Freeland's statement also added that Ottawa is now "reviewing current military procurement that relates to Boeing."

Military officials and defence industry representatives contacted by The Canadian Press on Thursday were united in assuming that Freeland's warning related to Ottawa's planned purchase of 18 Boeing Super Hornets to temporarily replace its aging fleet of CF-18s, a deal that could be worth up to $2 billion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bomb...tawa-1.4123209

I think the only message the Government of Canada is trying to get across clearly to the US here is if they want to start trade wars, they might lose too. Total trade between Canada and the US is fairly balanced, so if they take punitive action on something we can got tit for tat. They might not like it, but I think eventually they will get the message.

I don't think the election of Trump or Boeing's action was anticipated when they originally considered the purchase of the Superhornets.

**jagators63** · 09-06-2017, 05:41 PM

More problems for entire F-35 fleet due to oxygen problems

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politi...ems/index.html

**moahunter** · 19-06-2017, 09:15 AM

There has been interesting speculation that the German's might dump the Eurofighter for the F35. It seems the Eurofighter is just costing too much to modernize / make useful - if you don't have enough volume with an aircraft, it is a cash hog. Interesting article in BBC - which matches what I have written, air dominance isn't today about how fast, or how aerodynamic, its all about electronic sensors / detection ranges - guns account for less than 5% of kills, and most kills are BVR now:

Early air combat during World War One involved lining up an enemy aircraft in the plane's sights and firing machine guns at propeller-powered aircraft flying at relatively low speeds.

Despite technological advancements, the basic principle remained the same for half a century.

But in the modern era, the human eye was quickly replaced. From 1965-1969, guns accounted for 65% of air-to-air kills, the CSBA says.

But between 1990 and 2002, they accounted for just 5% of kills - with the rest carried out by some kind of missile.

"Modern air combat is almost entirely decided by situational awareness [from radar and other sensors] and missile technology," Bronk says. "All recent air-to-air kills between fast jets were one-sided, quick affairs."

Most kills in the last two decades have been against enemy planes too far away to see with the human eye - which means technology often trumps pilot skill.

That gives the US a clear advantage.

It spends more on military technology than any other nation, has more aircraft carriers and deploys specialist ships with sensor arrays to aid its aerial fleet.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-40327934

**norwoodguy** · 22-06-2017, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by moahunter

There has been interesting speculation that the German's might dump the Eurofighter for the F35. It seems the Eurofighter is just costing too much to modernize / make useful ...

The sheer strength of numbers and economics will mean that the F-35 will suck up a lot of the future development funding. That being said, the Eurofighter is a high altitude air superiority fighter something that the F-35 was not designed for but the US will probably be the last western nation with the wealth to afford such expensive specialized aircraft.

**norwoodguy** · 22-06-2017, 06:46 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93NdwZAeXhI

**moahunter** · 10-10-2017, 02:30 PM

What is it with the Liberals and used military equipment for our forces? They don't think our forces deserve better than used submarines, or now it seems, used Super Hornets? They don't realize there is a reason Australia is willing to sell them?

http://nationalpost.com/news/politic...from-australia

**McBoo** · 11-10-2017, 01:02 PM

Article doesn't say why, or even if Australia considers these jets surplus. The aim of the feds move is to make it clear to Boeing that as long as it's trying to put Bombardier out of business, we'll spend our money elsewhere (even if it's for planes previously built by Boeing).

And on that front (from the Globe and Mail):

Delta Air Lines says it will go through withan order for 75 Bombardier Inc. planes C Series despite U.S. government dutiesof nearly 300 per cent but might delay taking possession of the airliners.

"We willtake the planes," Delta chief executive Ed Bastian told analysts during anearnings call Wednesday.
Delta is scheduled to take delivery of the firstC Series in April 2018. By then, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)is expected to deliver final rulings on whether Commerce's initial decisions toimpose duties on the C Series will stand.

"It is verydifficult for Boeing or any U.S. manufacturer to claim harm with a product thatwe purchased that they did not offer and they don't produce," Mr. Bastiansaid. "As you look through this and try to see how exactly a harm case isgoing to be developed, particularly to justify the type of tarrifs that arebeing contemplated, to us it's unrealistic, a bit nonsensical."

**H.L.** · 11-10-2017, 01:11 PM

A second hand one for sure. Our men and women are used to crap!

**moahunter** · 11-10-2017, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by McBoo

Article doesn't say why, or even if Australia considers these jets surplus.

Australia is buying about 75 F35's. They were planning to keep the Growler Superhornets as being useful (although they may be having second thoughts on that, as Growlers aren't really needed with F35's), but the rest of their Superhornet fleet (which was also an interim buy), is surplus. The hard reality the Liberals don't want to face up to (or maybe just don't care about), is that every western fighter other than the F35 and F22 is going to be obsolete soon, its why almost every NATO nation is choosing the F35.

Buying used Australian jets though, just to prove a point against Boeing, is a recipe for disaster - most of the cost of a fighter jet over its life isn't the initial purchase - its operating it, the older and more used the jet, the more that is going to cost.

**Carbon-14** · 11-10-2017, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by moahunter

What is it with the Liberals and used military equipment for our forces? They don't think our forces deserve better than used submarines, or now it seems, used Super Hornets? They don't realize there is a reason Australia is willing to sell them?

http://nationalpost.com/news/politic...from-australia

Australia isn't selling their Super Hornets. The aircraft Canada is looking to buy are the F/A-18A/B Hornets

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ornets-441980/

**moahunter** · 11-10-2017, 03:30 PM

^my bad, that's horrible then, the forces would be just getting old planes like our current ones.

**H.L.** · 11-10-2017, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by moahunter

^my bad, that's horrible then, the forces would be just getting old planes like our current ones.

Exactly. It's the liberal way!

**McBoo** · 11-10-2017, 03:45 PM

Not defending the Liberals on this, they've turned a politically-motivated but impractical decision to cancel the F35 deal into a smelly, festering pile of doo-doo.

Now they're looking desperately for an interim "solution" (till after the next election one suspects) to try and come up with a good alternative long-term solution.

Not sure what role NATO expects from Canada in any sort of joint mission, but whatever that is, or was, the F35 was apparently considered well suited for it.

Maybe there are British, French or other aircraft also well suited and NORAD compatible (as both are NATO members).

I'm not nearly expert enough to know, but this file has been dragging on far too long and with the Bombardier file now involved, messier than ever.

**sundance** · 23-10-2017, 12:57 PM

Trump's decision to add a 220% tariff on Bombardier means that Canada will not significantly order much from Boeing, Boeing makes the Super Hornet. The F-35 Lightning II is built by Lockheed Martin. My guess is Trudeau's decision might spill over to effect any US military plane purchase.
https://globalnews.ca/news/3798817/j...rdier-tariffs/

**moahunter** · 23-10-2017, 01:00 PM

^The F35 is winning almost every NATO procurement competition now. He has backed himself into a corner, sadly our military are the ones who miss out. At best they will get a 4.5 generation fighter, although those are getting increasingly more expensive (due to less production, if we buy Superhornet it will be the last ever manufacturing run) as the rest of NATO is all turning to the F35, which is dominating the 4.5 aircraft in combat exercises.

**Moodib** · 23-10-2017, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by H.L.

Originally Posted by moahunter

^my bad, that's horrible then, the forces would be just getting old planes like our current ones.

Exactly. It's the Canadian way!

Fixed.

**moahunter** · 23-10-2017, 10:23 PM

So much for it not being safe in Arctic conditions, the F35 has arrived for trials in Alaska where it will be based in 2020, very cool video:

https://youtu.be/_exoiqXHEXc

**nobleea** · 13-11-2017, 11:30 PM

I haven't read the whole thing, but a pretty good site which looks at the various options for CF-18 replacement, does virtual head to heads, etc. Lots of technical discussion.

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/

Seems that the Rafale is a popular choice.

The site isn't well organized for navigation, but there are many pages to go over. The right side has a bit of a menu.

**moahunter** · 06-12-2017, 10:55 AM

Looks like the Australian F18 purchase is the plan. Basically, we would be buying old spare parts to try and keep the fleet flying longer - a stop gap solution. I guess if there is one positive, it is that the F35 is continuing to have all its bugs worked out, and is entering or has entered service, so when we do buy it (something every major NATO ally is doing as there is nothing comparable to it capability wise for the money), it can be a more mature aircraft version.

The government is instead moving ahead with Plan B: Buying used F-18 jets from Australia, which the country is selling as it begins to receive new F-35 stealth fighters.

Sources, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue, also say there are concerns the decision will resurrect memories of the four subs Canada bought from the U.K., one of which caught fire while crossing the Atlantic, killing a naval officer.

The government has also been forced to sink billions into the vessels to address a multitude of technical problems over the years, which has kept them docked more often than they have been at sea.

Australia's F-18s are almost certain to be cheaper than Super Hornets, and easier to incorporate into the existing fleet, since they are almost identical to Canada's own CF-18s. But the used jets are 30 years old — the same vintage as the CF-18s — and will need significant upgrades to continue flying into the next decade, which is when the entire fleet is expected to be replaced.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/...submarine-saga

**bpeters** · 06-12-2017, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by moahunter

..the F35 is continuing to have all its bugs worked out,

Spoken first by the F-35 brigade in 2006......

**norwoodguy** · 06-12-2017, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by bpeters

Originally Posted by moahunter

..the F35 is continuing to have all its bugs worked out,

Spoken first by the F-35 brigade in 2006......

10+ million lines of code in the F-35, more than 4 times that of the F-22. I remember reading once that IBM had decided with its old MVS mainframe operating system that there was so much code and complexity that certain bugs were left unfixed because of the potential risk of introducing more bugs with a patch. Who cares if the windshield wipers don't work or if you can't empty the porta potty mid flight.

As long as you don't have to fix things by doing a <CTRL><ALT><DELETE> in the middle of a dogflight or a merge.

**moahunter** · 06-12-2017, 03:53 PM

^the electronics in the plane is insane. They say its basically a mini-awacs, it makes everything around it more powerful. But yeah, tons to go wrong as well. I think that's just the way now, they are still fixing bugs on the F22, these aircraft are so complex they will never be perfect. I think the next "big" thing might be laser technology - if you can instantly fry a tiny hole in an incoming missile, that would certainly keep you alive longer.

https://www.defensetech.org/2015/07/...ssile-defense/

**norwoodguy** · 07-12-2017, 10:28 AM

^Yeah, as a gadget geek one can't help but be impressed by all the tech. From the glass cockpit, the helmet with its 360 degree virtual sensor synthesized situational awareness, the Hoover behind the cockpit in the F-35B, the multipurpose sensor EW energy weapon aspect of its AESA radar etc etc.

There's a lot of criticism of the complexity and cost of the F-35 program but for better or worse this has been the technological arc of fighter aircraft evolution and as such the F-35 represents a swing for the fences rather than merely an incremental advancement.

Networked warfare that leverages data is the new paradigm and the notion of one-on-one chivalrous dogfighting/jousting as the prime mode of combat is no longer tenable. Yes, the Russians still emphasize super maneuverability in its SU-57 but they still try to embrace the notion of low observability, sensor fusion and its not as though their aircraft is not controlled by lots of computer code with flight control surfaces controlled purely by mechanical pulleys and cables linked directly to the pilot's pedals and joystick (an impossibility since super maneuverability is created by inherent inherent aerodynamic instability that can only be controlled via computer).

And in the past 20 years of air-to-air warfare when was the last kill with a gun or a prolonged dogfight where both planes were doing things like twisting scissors, hammerhead stalls, etc. A close in dogfight is now the last option. Energy is life. If you read accounts of the air to air engagements during the first Iraq war, yes the Americans and Iraqis got within visual range but they did not engage in the classic dog fight I just described. There were a lot of high energy turns designed to gain nose position to launch missiles from a distrance.

**bpeters** · 07-12-2017, 11:06 AM

Good post norwood. I can't even begin to challenge anything of what you posted. I just see numbers. Yes, my bad and my own ignorance. The price is astronomical. Using the same analogy though; what happens when you swing for fences? Its either a homerun or a deep fly ball. The latter having the same result as a strike three at the plate. An out. A whole lot more impressive but still an out. The F-35 is by no means a homerun. Advancements in warfare are not exclusive to jet fighters. I know you're not implying that. Air to air missile tech is getting very very good as well. As it surface to air. As well the aforementioned laser and drone future capability.
The F35 biggest claim is "I can see you before you see me, and by then it's over". Really? Can these fighters be deployed from invisible bases that the enemy cannot find? The enemy has intelligence and intelligence gathering too. A good Gen 4 fighter with uber tech missiles can likely have some kind of effect. I've always claimed take them out on the ground or carrier. I know its not that simple but it can be that simple.
On the tech front the one thing history has shown is alot of military tech advancements cross over to have applications in other sectors.

**moahunter** · 07-12-2017, 11:10 AM

^in actual war games, the F22 and F35 are totally dominant. They detect enemy fighters with passive devices (which prevent being detect themselves - nothing to hone in on), and are just specs on aircraft radar systems (they can be picked up on some large ground based systems, but not accurately enough for a lock). A 4g fighter can't get close enough to allow its technology to get a lock before it is blown away. The price is coming down as well, its close to 80m now for an F35, its already roughly Superhornet price, but unlike the Superhornet, it will be around for the next 40 years. My fear is the Liberals will buy something else more expensive but less capable like a Euro fighter or Rafael, simply because Trudeau once said the F35 sucks - i.e. for political reasons not military ones. As to history, the US Navy last shot down a plane with guns in the 1970's, its been electronic missile based warfare ever since, and US aircraft have dominated that, especially the F15 (and for a time the F14) which was basically a giant radar with wings. The F35 and F22 take that even further, and will be the only platforms that get laser technology when it arrives.

**norwoodguy** · 07-12-2017, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by bpeters

Good post norwood. I can't even begin to challenge anything of what you posted. I just see numbers. Yes, my bad and my own ignorance. The price is astronomical. Using the same analogy though; what happens when you swing for fences? Its either a homerun or a deep fly ball. The latter having the same result as a strike three at the plate. An out. A whole lot more impressive but still an out. The F-35 is by no means a homerun. Advancements in warfare are not exclusive to jet fighters. I know you're not implying that. Air to air missile tech is getting very very good as well. As it surface to air. As well the aforementioned laser and drone future capability.
The F35 biggest claim is "I can see you before you see me, and by then it's over". Really? Can these fighters be deployed from invisible bases that the enemy cannot find? The enemy has intelligence and intelligence gathering too. A good Gen 4 fighter with uber tech missiles can likely have some kind of effect. I've always claimed take them out on the ground or carrier. I know its not that simple but it can be that simple.
On the tech front the one thing history has shown is alot of military tech advancements cross over to have applications in other sectors.

Well as I said "for better or worse" and no there is no guarantee the F-35 is a homerun as technological reach entails risk. And of course in any form of warfare all is fair such including unconventional assymetric responses. But is the response to buy large numbers of lightweight fighters like the F-16 and A-10 Warthogs as proposed by people like Sprey and play a game of simple attrition? It's not as though the F-35 is limited to F-22 sized numbers, the combined NATO F-35 fleet is easily equal to whatever Russia can put up in numbers. And the notion of killing aircraft before they take off applies to less advanced aircraft as well. Do Russian aircraft not have data links as well? AESA radar? Helmet mounted sighting systems. They are engaged in a similar game albeit with less technological sophistication. Can we not kill their aircraft in their hangars as well?

**H.L.** · 07-12-2017, 11:45 AM

Omg, I can't believe we are buying second hand planes,What's with these liberals and second hand pieces of *****. Submarine anyone? Sigh..

**nobleea** · 07-12-2017, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by H.L.

Omg, I can't believe we are buying second hand planes,What's with these liberals and second hand pieces of *****. Submarine anyone? Sigh..

The CC-150 Polaris planes were bought used and have worked out quite well. They used to belong to Wardair.

**kcantor** · 07-12-2017, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by H.L.

Omg, I can't believe we are buying second hand planes,What's with these liberals and second hand pieces of *****. Submarine anyone? Sigh..

it’s no harder than believing we’re going to spend at least 30 billion more on new frigates because the offer to sell them - new and all built in canada except the first two - arrived unsolicited and outside the requisite protocol. and here i thought protocol was adopted to ensure the best pricing possible, not to rationalize paying more than twice the best pricing possible.

**norwoodguy** · 07-12-2017, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by kcantor

and here i thought protocol was adopted to ensure the best pricing possible, not to rationalize paying more than twice the best pricing possible.

What you just said makes so much sense I just got a migraine. Canadian defence procurement has been such a morass for the past 50 years.

**nobleea** · 07-12-2017, 02:07 PM

Has anyone read that website I posted earlier? It is very in depth, lots of technical information.
Their Fight Club head to head competitions are quite interesting.

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.c...x-results=1000

The compare them head to head on Interdiction/Penetration, Deep Strike, Payload, Close Air Support, First Look/First Kill, Beyond Visual Range, Within Visual Range, Dogfight, Versatility, Logistics.
As an example, in head to head F-35 vs Gripen, the Gripen took 7 categories and the F-35 took 4. Rafale took one more from teh F-35 in their head to head. Typhoon vs Super Hornet was a tie. F-35 lost to the F-15SE. etc etc.

The F-35 doesn't fare so well.

Also, interesting note is that the Gripen is available as a lease which would seem to work well for an interim jet program. The Gripen-E is an equal to the SuperHornet with the Gripen being a better fighter and the Super Hornet acting better in a bomber role.

**norwoodguy** · 09-12-2017, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by nobleea

Has anyone read that website I posted earlier? It is very in depth, lots of technical information.
Their Fight Club head to head competitions are quite interesting.

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.c...x-results=1000

The compare them head to head on Interdiction/Penetration, Deep Strike, Payload, Close Air Support, First Look/First Kill, Beyond Visual Range, Within Visual Range, Dogfight, Versatility, Logistics.
As an example, in head to head F-35 vs Gripen, the Gripen took 7 categories and the F-35 took 4. Rafale took one more from teh F-35 in their head to head. Typhoon vs Super Hornet was a tie. F-35 lost to the F-15SE. etc etc.

The F-35 doesn't fare so well.

Interesting from a cursory point of view and purely from a compilation of specs and a collection of stories from the open web not that valuable in forming an accurate conclusion without a flyoff and deeper considerations.

For example, the author gives the Gripen the edge in BVR citing issues such as the AIM-120s 50% PK in combat without noting that the Meteor missile has never been used in combat. Based on what I remember reading from other sources the AIM-102s PK is skewed by a relatively small sample size and some missiles having being launched in sub optimal combat conditions (such as against aircraft egressing at long range and at high speed). Plus the PK encompasses some of the earlier versions of the missile. And for some reason he discounts the F-35s LO as being of little consequence against the Gripen. By virtue of the article being written several years ago, it does not include the fact that the UK is integrating the Meteor for use on its F-35s.

He also gives the dogfighting edge to the Gripen because of its canards and low weight. A paper evaluation is not very useful without an actual flyoff. Pilots who have flown the F-35 describe it as a combination of the F-16 and F-18 in terms of maneuverability. Real pilots don't fly planes on paper.

The edge is given to the Gripen in close in air support partly due to its low speed turning agility, no doubt evoking the romanticism with the A-10. This might be fine in a permissive environment when you are fighting the Taliban but flying low and slow in a dense anti air aircraft environment against an adversary like Russia is a quick path to pulling the ejection handle. The advantage the F-35 offers is the ability to fuse sensor data from various sources including ground assets and quickly identifying targets and delivering precision munitions rather than merely raining down dumb rockets and cannon shells. Also the definition of close air support has broadened somewhat to beyond merely calling in an air asset for a strafing run, nowadays it is also calling in a JDAM from a B-1 or B-52 circling over head at 20,000+ feet.

But this is all rather moot as the selection process for a sophisticated expensive weapon like a jet fighter is not predicated purely on individual attributes. In today's paradigm, air combat is not about dueling individual aircraft but system against system. And it is how an airplane fits into the larger system and fighting doctrine that will be the key.

**moahunter** · 12-12-2017, 12:27 PM

So, we can debate this for another 5 years, since the decision has been punted down the line, for yet another competition. Used Australian jets to be purchased, followed by an eventual acquisition.

Canada plans to buy a handful of used Australian fighter jets as a stopgap on the way to replacing all of the air force's aging CF-18s sometime in the mid-2020s, the Liberal government said Tuesday.

Cabinet ministers at the same time formally announced the beginning of the competition to replace the entire fleet of fighter jets, a process that will take years.

The long-expected purchase of 18 warplanes puts an end to a bid for brand new Boeing Super Hornets, which had been the Trudeau government's initial plan over a year ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/figh...ment-1.4444466

And another broken election pledge, as the F35 is eligible to bid. I expect by 2022, it and the Gripen will be the only western produced jets in production (maybe France will still be making some Rafale's, the Eurofighter seems dead with both Germany and UK going for the F35).

**Drumbones** · 12-12-2017, 12:46 PM

Why can't they get the specs, design or whatever our own jets and have bombardier build them right here in Canada?

**moahunter** · 12-12-2017, 01:04 PM

^To design a modern fighter jet today would cost multiple billions and require at least a run of 1,000, probably more, to be profitable. We don't need 1,000 fighters. The Swedish government has lost a fortune subsidizing the Gripen, as an example. But yes, its quite possible whatever jet is purchased, could be assembled in Canada from foreign designs. Bombardier could assemble Rafael's, or Boeing Canada could assemble Gripen's - SAAB and Boeing work closely together (unlikely though with the Liberals, given the current relationship with Boeing).

**nobleea** · 15-12-2017, 09:25 AM

^ Agreed. Designing our own from scratch would be a disaster. Saab has been very welcoming to licensing agreements on the Gripen. That's one option where the planes are built locally to some Canadianized version. Probably more expensive than if Saab built them for us, but on the whole probably better for the economy.

**moahunter** · 15-12-2017, 09:33 AM

^The Rafale checks so many boxes that the Liberals think matter (dual engine, can be assembled in Canada by Bombardier, relationship with France, performs ground attack well unlike Eurofighter, technology transfer, etc.), but its weapons systems are incompatible, all the munitions we have built up would be obsolete and it would be difficult to integrate then into NORAD (you would need two stockpiles of weapons at Cold Lake, one for US aircraft, one for Canadian, etc.). Its also more expensive than the F35, but a beautiful plane than has proven effective in combat zones:

The Rafale has been amongst various aircraft proposed to meet Canada's need for a modern jet fighter to replace the aging McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet of the Royal Canadian Air Force.[183] In 2005, according to Canada.com, a report compiled by Canada's Defence Department reviewing several competing aircraft had noted concerns over the Rafale's interoperability with US forces; Dassault had also then been unable to confirm engine performance during cold weather conditions.[184] In July 2010, the Canadian government announced the replacement for the CF-18 was to be the F-35 Lightning II, as the country has been a partner in the Joint Strike Fighter program since 1997 and a Tier 3 partner for the F-35 since 2002.[185][186]

Then in December 2012, the Canadian government announced that the purchase of the F-35 had been abandoned due to greatly escalating costs, and that a fresh procurement process would begin.[187] In January 2013, Dassault responded to a request for information from the Canadian government and announced its readiness to enter a future competition for a future fighter procurement.[188] Various aircraft are to be considered to meet the requirement, including the F-35.[189] In January 2014, it was reported that Dassault offered a contract with full transfer of technology to allow Canada to perform its own support and upgrades, thereby lowering long-term service costs.[190][191]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale

**kcantor** · 15-12-2017, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by nobleea

^ Agreed. Designing our own from scratch would be a disaster. Saab has been very welcoming to licensing agreements on the Gripen. That's one option where the planes are built locally to some Canadianized version. Probably more expensive than if Saab built them for us, but on the whole probably better for the economy.

if suitable planes are available and we need planes we should buy the &$)@‘n things instead of trying to build our own independently or under license. and in a purely subjective analysis of all of the criteria, every military analysis i’ve seen says we should just be ordering the f35’s in the program canada has been participating in since day one. just like every other country who has participated in that program since day one plus others. as for the economic impact, the economy would be a whole lot better off if we took the billions we would save and spent them on a national minimum income for canadians from coast to coast.

**Ustauk** · 15-12-2017, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by moahunter

^To design a modern fighter jet today would cost multiple billions and require at least a run of 1,000, probably more, to be profitable. We don't need 1,000 fighters. The Swedish government has lost a fortune subsidizing the Gripen, as an example. But yes, its quite possible whatever jet is purchased, could be assembled in Canada from foreign designs. Bombardier could assemble Rafael's, or Boeing Canada could assemble Gripen's - SAAB and Boeing work closely together (unlikely though with the Liberals, given the current relationship with Boeing).

Originally Posted by moahunter

^The Rafale checks so many boxes that the Liberals think matter (dual engine, can be assembled in Canada by Bombardier, relationship with France, performs ground attack well unlike Eurofighter, technology transfer, etc.), but its weapons systems are incompatible, all the munitions we have built up would be obsolete and it would be difficult to integrate then into NORAD (you would need two stockpiles of weapons at Cold Lake, one for US aircraft, one for Canadian, etc.). Its also more expensive than the F35, but a beautiful plane than has proven effective in combat zones:

The Rafale has been amongst various aircraft proposed to meet Canada's need for a modern jet fighter to replace the aging McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet of the Royal Canadian Air Force.[183] In 2005, according to Canada.com, a report compiled by Canada's Defence Department reviewing several competing aircraft had noted concerns over the Rafale's interoperability with US forces; Dassault had also then been unable to confirm engine performance during cold weather conditions.[184] In July 2010, the Canadian government announced the replacement for the CF-18 was to be the F-35 Lightning II, as the country has been a partner in the Joint Strike Fighter program since 1997 and a Tier 3 partner for the F-35 since 2002.[185][186]

Then in December 2012, the Canadian government announced that the purchase of the F-35 had been abandoned due to greatly escalating costs, and that a fresh procurement process would begin.[187] In January 2013, Dassault responded to a request for information from the Canadian government and announced its readiness to enter a future competition for a future fighter procurement.[188] Various aircraft are to be considered to meet the requirement, including the F-35.[189] In January 2014, it was reported that Dassault offered a contract with full transfer of technology to allow Canada to perform its own support and upgrades, thereby lowering long-term service costs.[190][191]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale

If dual engines and NATO weapons compatibility are required, could Bombardier partner with both Dassault and Saab to take the cold-weather tested engines and NATO weapon-compatible avionics from the Gripen and put them in a modified Rafale air-frame? Or could Bombardier partner with Saab alone to develop a twin-engine Gripen variant?

The Czech Republic has been running Gripen's since 2005, including a deployment last year to Iceland for NATO. They may be a good third party to talk to about the performance of the Gripen with, as they've extended their lease for the fighters to 2027.

**moahunter** · 15-12-2017, 11:08 AM

^you are basically trying to create a slightly smaller Eurofighter then. But its not quite that simple, Eurofighter has had all sorts of problems trying to develop ground attack. Also, you are taking a plane that is already more expensive than F35, and developing it more, so the price would go up even more.

Dual engine isn't required (it was always more of an excuse to not choose the F35) - single engines are super safe and efficient now - the US is flying F35's in Alaska with no problems, and the Gripen is proven in the frozen north also. Interestingly the Gripen costs one third to operate compared to the Rafale:

The Rafale has been marketed for export to various countries. Various commentators and industry sources have highlighted the high cost of the aircraft as detrimental to the Rafale's sales prospects. Its acquisition cost is roughly US$100 million (2010),[211] while its operational cost hovers around US$16,500 (2012) for every flight-hour.[212]T he Saab JAS Gripen, in comparison, costs only US$4,700 per flight-hour to operate.[212] ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale

So you could fly three Gripens for every Rafale for the same cost (albeit pilots are expensive).

**norwoodguy** · 17-12-2017, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Ustauk

If dual engines and NATO weapons compatibility are required, could Bombardier partner with both Dassault and Saab to take the cold-weather tested engines and NATO weapon-compatible avionics from the Gripen and put them in a modified Rafale air-frame? Or could Bombardier partner with Saab alone to develop a twin-engine Gripen variant?

Depending on what you mean by a modified Rafale air frame you are essentially designing a new aircraft because you're talking about systems integration, rewriting the aircraft flight control system to account for the different aerodynamics as well as all the flight testing you need to determine the aircraft's flight dynamics, flight limits, possibly redesigning the air intakes to accommodate different engines etc. It's akin to thinking the Super Hornet is simply an enlarged Hornet.

Then there is also the issue of whether to try and integrate with the datalinks of fellow NATO F-35 operators. Which may actually be the most critical issue with regards to warfighting doctrine.

**moahunter** · 20-12-2017, 06:56 AM

Anyone who foolishly thinks Lockheed Martin has built a fighter that can’t turn / manoeuvre needs to watch this video, these Royal Netherlands aircraft were on the way home, after having already performed their mission in Green Flag:

Although this was not by any means the first time F-35s thundered through the canyon, it certainly was the most dynamic. The jets showed up after finishing a sortie supporting exercise Green Flag. In the end the spectacular visit by the F-35s was a win-win for the RNLAF and the F-35 program as a whole. Pilots got to practice a bit of complex low-level flying while also gaining a bunch of publicity in the process. Regardless of your stance on the F-35, there is no doubt that those who have shepherded the program along, from the pilots to the test contractors to the ground support crews, deserve a ton of recognition for their hard work and dedication. These shots of the F-35 in action, and others like it, certainly provide that recognition is spades.

As Rainbow Canyon continues to draw aviation photographers and military technology enthusiasts from around the globe, it hasn't disappointed in providing spectacular subjects for photographers to shoot on an incredible backdrop, as well as some unique spotting opportunities. For instance, just last week one of Area 51's rare F-16Ds blasted through the canyon with an interesting sensor attached. But these F-35s put on an entirely different level of display altogether and thankfully we have video and pictures to show for it.

Well done RNLAF, Bluelife Aviation ,and Dafydd Philips, well done.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...ar-wars-canyon

That’s what our forces deserve, not used and corroded Australian F18s designed almost 50 years ago, someone needs to show this to little potato and ask him to put his big pants on and make the right decision.

**Edmonton PRT** · 20-12-2017, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by moahunter

Anyone who foolishly thinks Lockheed Martin has built a fighter that can’t turn / manoeuvre needs to watch this video, these Royal Netherlands aircraft were on the way home, after having already performed their mission in Green Flag:

Although this was not by any means the first time F-35s thundered through the canyon, it certainly was the most dynamic. The jets showed up after finishing a sortie supporting exercise Green Flag. In the end the spectacular visit by the F-35s was a win-win for the RNLAF and the F-35 program as a whole. Pilots got to practice a bit of complex low-level flying while also gaining a bunch of publicity in the process. Regardless of your stance on the F-35, there is no doubt that those who have shepherded the program along, from the pilots to the test contractors to the ground support crews, deserve a ton of recognition for their hard work and dedication. These shots of the F-35 in action, and others like it, certainly provide that recognition is spades.

As Rainbow Canyon continues to draw aviation photographers and military technology enthusiasts from around the globe, it hasn't disappointed in providing spectacular subjects for photographers to shoot on an incredible backdrop, as well as some unique spotting opportunities. For instance, just last week one of Area 51's rare F-16Ds blasted through the canyon with an interesting sensor attached. But these F-35s put on an entirely different level of display altogether and thankfully we have video and pictures to show for it.

Well done RNLAF, Bluelife Aviation ,and Dafydd Philips, well done.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...ar-wars-canyon

That’s what our forces deserve, not used and corroded Australian F18s designed almost 50 years ago, someone needs to show this to little potato and ask him to put his big pants on and make the right decision.

The canyon video was Ho-Hum. Nothing surprising or impressive. I was in similar canyons in the deserts of Oregon/Idaho and huge B-52 bombers came flying through at less than 150 feet above the ground (less than wingspan height). MUCH more impressive.

I have also seen F-18's, F-16's, F-15's and other older fighters do more impressive maneuvers than your video.

Although the F-18s were initially designed 45 years ago, you do realize that the F-35 was started 25 years ago as well, don't you?

I do agree that the Australian jets are old and we should look at other options.

BTW, please fix the video link.

**moahunter** · 20-12-2017, 08:56 AM

^Video link works (issue will be your phone or computer). Haters are going to hate and its easy to hate something which is the largest military project ever - the reality is the price of an F35 is rapidly dropping, the bugs are being ironed out (and all fighters have them, even CF18's still do), and in combat exercises like red flag (real life, not computer simulations) it has a 15:1 kill ratio against 4g jets like the CF18 (Which is amazing when you consider its optimized to be a fighter attack aircraft, not air superiority) - it would take 1,125 Canadian CF18's to defeat 75 Netherlands F35's (the amount Canada was going to order).

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...lag-war-games/

**Marcel Petrin** · 20-12-2017, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by moahunter

^Video link works

No, it doesn't.

**moahunter** · 20-12-2017, 09:37 AM

^it works on my phone (apple), I have removed the two // before youtube, maybe it will work on other peoples devices now.

**Edmonton PRT** · 20-12-2017, 10:15 AM

There was a error in the link and is still not fixed. I had to cut and paste.

Moa, remind me when was the last time that a Canadian fighter jet shot down an enemy fighter in mid-air?

**moahunter** · 20-12-2017, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

Moa, remind me when was the last time that a Canadian fighter jet shot down an enemy fighter in mid-air?

Its almost happened this year, in Syria, and is a constant threat in Nato missions which we regularly take part in. There are Canadian fighters standing by in the Baltic (Lithuania) right now that are there in case of a Russian invasion. But yeah, sure, you have gone from "the f35 sucks" to, "the F35 is too powerful" -its progress, soon you will be saying "the F35 is too cheap", because it will be cheaper than many of the few options left (especially on a life cycle basis as every new weapon will be optimized for it). Will be at 80m per unit including engine by 2020, down from $85M in 2018.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06..._17209550.html

Lockheed Martin plans to reduce per unit cost of F-35 fighter jet to $80 million by 2020.

With the incorporation of lessons learned, process efficiencies, production automation, facility and tooling upgrades, supply chain initiatives and more – the F-35 enterprise has already significantly reduced costs and improved efficiency, the company said in a statement Monday.

Last Friday, Lockheed Martin delivered the sixty sixth F-35 aircraft for the year, meeting the joint government and industry delivery target for 2017.

Sixty-six F-35 deliveries in 2017 represents more than a 40 percent increase from 2016.The F-35 enterprise is prepared to increase production volume year-over-year to hit full rate of approximately 160 aircraft in 2023, , the company said.

The current unit cost of F-35A is $94.6 million (low rate initial production lot 10 (LRIP 10) including F135 engine). The full production in 2018 is to be $85 million. The F-35B will costs $122.8 million per unit (LRIP 10 including engine) and the F-35C costs $121.8M (LRIP 10 including engine) a piece.

According to the press statement, the price of an F-35A has come down more than 60 percent from the first contract. Touch labor has been reduced by about 75 percent over the last five years and production span time has decreased by about 20 percent since 2015.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/215...0#.Wjqf1lKWyM8

**Edmonton PRT** · 20-12-2017, 10:48 AM

I ask a question and get berated.

Love the 'almost happened' reference, non-answer. I think the last time was 1945. Wait a second, that was a fighter with a propeller. I cannot find any time in the history of the Canadain Air Force that a Canadian fighter jet shoot down another jet of any kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...aft_shootdowns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E..._combat_losses

Please show me where I said "the f35 sucks" to, "the F35 is too powerful" or "the F35 is too cheap".

Love you when you put words in my mouth out of context.

By the way, you keep saying that the F-35 price is coming down. What is the sale price now? Is it available on Amazon?

**moahunter** · 20-12-2017, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

By the way, you keep saying that the F-35 price is coming down. What is the sale price now? Is it available on Amazon?[/COLOR]

I posted a link, why don't you look at it - its $85m for 2018, including engine. A 5g aircraft that is 15 times more powerful than any 4g aircraft, for the price of a Super Hornet, its not surprising countries like the Netherlands, Israel, UK and Japan are snapping them up, while we buy second hand aircraft.

**noodle** · 20-12-2017, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

Love you when you put words in my mouth out of context.

It's his MO whenever he feels he's getting backed into a corner; he'll put words in your mouth & then respond as if you'd actually said them rather than said thoughts being solely the product of his own sad, twisted mind.

**bpeters** · 20-12-2017, 11:35 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh-0KHbwCF8
F35 in the canyon? Yawn.....unless the angle is misleading, looks to be above the canyon. This video is better. Its a twin engine craft.

**moahunter** · 20-12-2017, 11:42 AM

^yawn... this is what Dutch pilots get to fly, I bet they are glad their PM isn't Trudeau, scrounging round for some surplus Australian left overs:

**bpeters** · 20-12-2017, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

I think the last time was 1945. Wait a second, that was a fighter with a propeller. I cannot find any time in the history of the Canadain Air Force that a Canadian fighter jet shoot down another jet of any kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...aft_shootdowns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E..._combat_losses

I'm not here to argue and certainly the more informed would know better but I believe a number of Cdn. pilots flew in the Korean War and are credited with kills and shootdowns. In particular Omer Levesque and Ernie Glover. However you did say 'Canadian fighter' and they may have been in the American version of the F-86. Omer Levesque is a great story.

**Thomas Hinderks** · 21-12-2017, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by bpeters

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

I think the last time was 1945. Wait a second, that was a fighter with a propeller. I cannot find any time in the history of the Canadain Air Force that a Canadian fighter jet shoot down another jet of any kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...aft_shootdowns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E..._combat_losses

I'm not here to argue and certainly the more informed would know better but I believe a number of Cdn. pilots flew in the Korean War and are credited with kills and shootdowns. In particular Omer Levesque and Ernie Glover. However you did say 'Canadian fighter' and they may have been in the American version of the F-86. Omer Levesque is a great story.

Accurate bpeters ... fantastic story. IIRC he was flying a Canadian built CL-13 Sabre, on of approx 50-60 sold to the United States per Larry Millberry's book on the Sabre.

IMO

**bpeters** · 21-12-2017, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by moahunter

^yawn... this is what Dutch pilots get to fly, I bet they are glad their PM isn't Trudeau, scrounging round for some surplus Australian left overs:

Likely a knee jerk reaction to NATO criticizing the Dutch gov't for not spending enough on military. So go get the latest gizmo.

**Thomas Hinderks** · 21-12-2017, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks

Originally Posted by bpeters

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

I think the last time was 1945. Wait a second, that was a fighter with a propeller. I cannot find any time in the history of the Canadain Air Force that a Canadian fighter jet shoot down another jet of any kind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...aft_shootdowns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E..._combat_losses

I'm not here to argue and certainly the more informed would know better but I believe a number of Cdn. pilots flew in the Korean War and are credited with kills and shootdowns. In particular Omer Levesque and Ernie Glover. However you did say 'Canadian fighter' and they may have been in the American version of the F-86. Omer Levesque is a great story.

Accurate bpeters ... fantastic story. IIRC he was flying a Canadian built CL-13 Sabre, one of approx 50-60 sold to the United States per Larry Millberry's book on the Sabre.

IMO

Bpeters ... for more on the topic check out the rcaf.ca website

They flew with the USAF’s 4th Fighter Interceptor Wing (FIW) at Kimpo or 51st 51st Fighter Interceptor Wing (FIW) at Suwon and served for six months or 50 combat missions, whichever came first. A combat mission usually consisted of flying 200 miles (320 kilometres) over enemy territory to the infamous “MiG Alley” (near the Chinese border) area, patrolling, contacting and fighting with the communists’ MiG-15s.The RCAF accounted for nine MiG “kills”, two “probables” and 10 “damaged”.

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/...1950-1953.page

**Edmonton PRT** · 11-01-2018, 12:47 PM

Why is Canada not getting F-52's that Norway is getting?

Trump lauded delivery of F-52s to Norway.

The planes only exist in ‘Call of Duty.’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ad4b6998835c

President Trump’s announcement of U.S-made F-52s fighter aircraft delivered to Norway may have rattled its neighbor Russia, the source of rising tension among NATO allies.

Was it a secret advanced jet capable of beating its Russian counterparts? A ruse to fool intelligence analysts?

Neither, it turns out. The “F-52” is a fictional jet only available to fly if you’re a gamer at the controls of “Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare.”

Trump lauded the sale of the fictional planes alongside Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg at the White House on Wednesday, remarking on the very real and growing defense relationship with America’s Northern Europe ally.

“In November we started delivering the first F-52s and F-35 fighter jets,” Trump said. “We have a total of 52 and they’ve delivered a number of them already a little ahead of schedule.”