Gov't announces JSF purchase

[whiteguy]

Isn't Canada involved in the design and building of this aircraft? Why wouldn't you support a product you have a hand in!

[Hedley]

(cough - superhornet - cough)

[boeingboy]

Is the F-35 really the best choice for this country?

There is a lot of talk about what might be needed in what country in the future. If we bought a slightly less stealthy airplane and deployed it overseas in the future - then it would be used on missions where it fit. You wouldn't send it into the most heavilly defended areas - the USAF stleath bombers would do that - just like desert storm.

We have to factor a number of things - including cost. IMHO the JSF is WAY overpriced and it gets more expensive every week. We are only getting 65 planes. Not a whole lot is it? When considering some will be lost operationally and some will be assigined to training squadrons.

When the F-18 was chosen some of the factors were: "Reasons for the selection listed by the Canadian Forces were many of its requested features were included for the U.S. Navy; two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols) and overall cost. We bought 125 (i think) aircraft - others like the F-14 and F-15 were concidered but ultimatly rejected due to cost.

Does any CF pilot here think we short changed our air force because we didn't buy F-15's - arguably the best fighter in the world at the time (and still holds it's own today). What's so bad about the super hornet? Almost as cabable (as in it doesn't have stealth) and we could buy a few more of them for the same price. Or any of the others for that matter (Typhoon, Gripen........)

I still think we should have concidered 2 engined aircraft.

[AuxBatOn]

Is the F-35 really the best choice for this country?

As it is with the aircraft available, I believe that yes.

There is a lot of talk about what might be needed in what country in the future. If we bought a slightly less stealthy airplane and deployed it overseas in the future - then it would be used on missions where it fit. You wouldn't send it into the most heavilly defended areas - the USAF stleath bombers would do that - just like desert storm.

Stealth doesn't mean completely invisible to radars. It means less visible to radars. It's a feature you want, regardless of the mission you do.

We have to factor a number of things - including cost. IMHO the JSF is WAY overpriced and it gets more expensive every week. We are only getting 65 planes. Not a whole lot is it? When considering some will be lost operationally and some will be assigined to training squadrons.

The JSF is not overpriced. It will be relevant on the world scene for 30 years. The Super Hornet won't and is as expensive as the JSF. Regardless of what we get, we will get 65 aircraft or at least it is my understanding. FWIW, we will GAIN capability by getting 65 aircraft (vice our current [s]80[/s] [s]79[/s] 78 aircraft we currently have. Just a guess but I think the OTU will be done in the US.

When the F-18 was chosen some of the factors were: "Reasons for the selection listed by the Canadian Forces were many of its requested features were included for the U.S. Navy; two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols) and overall cost. We bought 125 (i think) aircraft - others like the F-14 and F-15 were concidered but ultimatly rejected due to cost.

That was with 1970s engine. The JSF engines (F135 and F136) are more reliable. If you look at the stats of catastrophic engine failures during a mission, it's pretty low. Most engine shut downs I have heard of were preventive.

Does any CF pilot here think we short changed our air force because we didn't buy F-15's - arguably the best fighter in the world at the time (and still holds it's own today). What's so bad about the super hornet? Almost as cabable (as in it doesn't have stealth) and we could buy a few more of them for the same price. Or any of the others for that matter (Typhoon, Gripen........)

No we did not get shortchanged, because we needed a multi-role fighter. In 1980, the F-15s were purely an Air Superiority fighter with no Air to Ground capabilities at all. The F-15E came later and added the A-G capabilities.

This whole quote juste shows you don't know much. What the JSF offers, no other aircraft can offer. Some of the technology offered by some other 4.5 generation aircraft is similar but the overall package is nowhere near what the JSF offers. Even the F-22 (F-22 lacks A-G). The JSF is very much a completely integrated aircraft, both its sensors and other platforms sensors. Stealth airframe isn't the only difference in capability between the JSF and the Super Hornet. It's much much deeper than that.

I still think we should have concidered 2 engined aircraft.

If a twin-engine aircraft with the capabilities the JSF offers was available, I would agree with you. Right now, you're way off base.

[oldncold]

I say again the block e/f super hornets are good. However against the f22 raptor which has a 87-1 kill ratio .

so by the time you have spent 8 billion getting those in a conflict their commanding officers will be informing there families that they are a credit to the country and medals postmously but the gov't decided to do it on the cheap . freedom is cheap only when you have spent the money to keep it in the first place

[boeingboy]

AuxBatOn,
I thank you for your input. If it's the best for the job - fine, I really have no favorite, but one will always have questions, and in this day and age - there are those out there that will blindly buy things that don't work, or others that just have to have it because it's the latest and greatest thing with the most buttons. As a taxpayer - I think it's my right to question things. Does anyone really know who was involved with the decision to but these - how involved was the military and did the goverment really listen to what they were told?


I never proclaimed I knew everything, but being involved in aviation and following military aircraft and their development for 30 years or more - I feel some of my concerns are valid, and that I have half an idea of what we're discussing. I'm not some Joe-butt-head that knows nothing at all.

Stealth doesn't mean completely invisible to radars. It means less visible to radars. It's a feature you want, regardless of the mission you do.

I know that - I simply ment that the aircraft would be fit into missions they could complete based on the threat level and the aircraft's capibilities.

The JSF is not overpriced. It will be relevant on the world scene for 30 years. The Super Hornet won't and is as expensive as the JSF. Regardless of what we get, we will get 65 aircraft or at least it is my understanding. FWIW, we will GAIN capability by getting 65 aircraft (vice our current [s]80[/s] [s]79[/s] 78 aircraft we currently have. Just a guess but I think the OTU will be done in the US.

Hmm - I still think it's overpriced, but each to their own. If we are only getting 65 no matter what - I think we need more. Last I saw - The F-18 E/F was $58 million per copy and the JSF was 119 million/copy. Either way, whatever aircraft would be bought is a giant leap forward from what we have now.

That was with 1970s engine. The JSF engines (F135 and F136) are more reliable. If you look at the stats of catastrophic engine failures during a mission, it's pretty low. Most engine shut downs I have heard of were preventive.

I hope your right. It may have been a 1970's engine.....but the 135/136 engines are new designs and have no real time on them. One only has to look at the F-16 engine failure record. One of the many problems they had was with fuel pumps failing. I hope for our (your) sake rampent failures do not crop up in a few years time. Usually this is where most failures happen in service.......long after the testing is complete.
It really doesn't have to be a catistrophic failure. It's easy to do a preventative shutdown with 2 engines. If the oil pressure drops or the chip light comes on and your over the Arctic or 200 miles offshore - then what? Pray that it's a false warning and it keeps turning till you get to a suitable landing spot? A single engine airplane can get real quiet real fast.

No we did not get shortchanged, because we needed a multi-role fighter. In 1980, the F-15s were purely an Air Superiority fighter with no Air to Ground capabilities at all. The F-15E came later and added the A-G capabilities.

This whole quote juste shows you don't know much. What the JSF offers, no other aircraft can offer. Some of the technology offered by some other 4.5 generation aircraft is similar but the overall package is nowhere near what the JSF offers. Even the F-22 (F-22 lacks A-G). The JSF is very much a completely integrated aircraft, both its sensors and other platforms sensors. Stealth airframe isn't the only difference in capability between the JSF and the Super Hornet. It's much much deeper than that.

Again - I never said I knew lots - just that the cheaper solution - while maybe not the most up to date, melded, perfect airplane - is still no slouch.

Right now, you're way off base.

Sorry.

[canwhitewolf]

seems like there is just way too much hype about this plane

didnt anyone read the australian analysis on page 4 here previously posted

here it is again, would be interested in opinions of the article

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html

seems the russian su35f has the edge,

[challydriver]

My earlier comments aside, I do like the Lockheed-Martin F-35.

In general, the F-35A will serve two roles for Canada (and please tell me if there's more).

NORAD, where I see the F-35 as a good aircraft in the air defense role but maybe not as good as some of the other choices (Eurofighter Typhoon, F/A-22 or even the F-15C). The idea being, the fighter goes up, finds the bad guys and (if required) shoots them down. Quite obviously, when the CF-188 was chosen, the F-15 would have been the better choice for Canada's NORAD commitments but the F-15 was dedicated to this role only and wouldn't have been well suited to other commitments (like NATO in Europe).

NATO, where I see the F-35 as an outstanding aircraft and the best choice for Canada in this role. It will operate along side our NATO Allies (US, UK, etc.). With the NATO style missions (like the Balkans), the F-35 will not be tasked with air supremacy mission (I see that going to the F/A-22) but with strike missions. In this case, Canada can contribute equally and our pilots will have a good chance of survival in combat flying the F-35. If required, the F-35 can protect itself against the SU-35s, but in general, it's defending itself, but it's not on the hunt like the F/A-22 would be. The CF-188 served our NATO commitment well and probably better than any other other aircraft we could have purchased at the time. The CF-188 modernization program has brought the Hornet up to better standards with our allies mostly for ground attack but also with AMRAMM (yes, I know there's also some datalink & avionics in there as well).

I tend to think we should be more dedicated to our NORAD role (versus NATO) and hence why I preferred the Eurofighter Typhoon for Canada (versus the F-35A). But again, that's not my choice.

Regardless, when Canada purchased the CF-188 they didn't get the best interceptor/air superiority fighter money could buy nor did they get the best attack aircraft. They did get an aircraft that did both roles, and did them well. Based on the times, I think the CF-188 was the best choice for Canada at the time but the World has changed since we made that purchase.

In the end, I'm sure the F-35 will work out for the Canada and our commitments to NATO & NORAD. If history says anything, we don't go in to battle by ourselves but with our allies and the sum of the results of that battle is dependent on the total package we bring. The F-35 will let Canada be a part of that total package as would the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Super Hornet or others.

The choice the government and the military made is the F-35. It will work and best of all, our fighter pilots will have a very capable ride in the high threat environments.

Let's hope they never have to use it.

[trampbike]

is the f35 all that good..maybe not and we certainly dont need 65 of them from my persective

How? The Deadly Question for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

How will the intended 2,443 F-35s JSF impose air dominance for the USA and its Allies? That is the question to ask.

Search the Internet for material on the JSF and you will find terabyte after terabyte of articles, pictures, Powerpoint presentations, PDFs, tables and laudatory Blogs. And how much relates to how the JSF will deliver this capability? You will find assertions and statement such as ‘six times better Relative Loss Exchange Ratio than legacy aircraft’ [1], or ‘The operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30-1 for the F-22, 3-1 for the F-35 and 1-1 or less for the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16’[2].

And how will the F-35 JSF perform, not against truly obsolete legacy aircraft like the Su-27SK and the MiG-29, but against modern fighters like the Su-35S? We can answer these questions with a head-to-head analysis of the two aircraft.

Air combat is a complex mix of art, science and engineering. Aircraft performance, weapons performance, networked sensors and pilot skill all contribute to the final Loss Exchange Ratio (LER). The only simplification is that aircraft approach, engage in combat and the survivors depart. This activity can be examined in a ‘kill-chain’ with the following stages: ‘Detect-Identify-Engage-Disengage-Destroy’ (DIED2).

Here is a scenario. In the ‘Blue’ corner, we have a flight of four F-35A JSFs, each armed with four AIM-120D Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles and the 25 mm GD ATP GAU-22/A cannon. No additional weapons or fuel are carried, because these would compromise the JSFs' “low observability” to X-Band radar. In the ‘Red’ corner, we have a flight of four Su-35S, each armed with four RVV-SD Active Radar Seeker BVR Missiles, four RVV-SD Infra-Red (IR) Seeker BVR missiles, two RVV-MD Within Visual Range (WVR) missiles, the 30mm GSh-301 cannon, KNIRTI SAP-518 jammers on the wingtips and a 6,000 litre conformal tank between the engines. Each aircraft has the full range of sensors and countermeasures.

Here is a table to show how they compare:

more info here

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html

I was about to answer but I was not sure it was worthwhile canwhitewolf....

[Old fella]

and it continues..........

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1658006/

[GoinNowhereFast]

Thanks Liberal Party of Canada, you just reminded me why I have never voted for you.

[Expat]

Inter-operability is a commercial myth.

Here in Af, you have quite a range of airplanes from all over the world. They manage to operate well.

Every country brings his own hardware and operates it. The Germans fly Tornados, The Brits had Vulcans, and the US has everything...
The afghan army and air force still used old soviet planes and helicopters...

When the ennemy is a wedding party, a school bus or a mud hut, any plane will do...

[fingersmac]

Or a 1950s Soviet-era bomber!

[. ._]

When the enemy is a wedding party, a school bus or a mud hut, any plane will do...

Man, that was good.

[robbreid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDsCjGay ... youtu.be&a Peter McKay spending your money . . .

At close to 50 million apiece - we could have bought a 65 fleet Global XRS to deliver our peace keepers worldwide!!!! In luxury . . .

Kidding aside, here is the Canadian Govt. F-35 webpage, including the 50 Canadian Corporations who have a role in the development of this aircraft,

http://f-35.ca/canadian-partners-en/

[Expat]

Or a 1950s Soviet-era bomber!

Russia still flies them...actually the US too!

[Expat]

When the enemy is a wedding party, a school bus or a mud hut, any plane will do...

Man, that was good.

...but it is true...no ennemy targets here, except. bare foot talibs...

[2R]

Or a 1950s Soviet-era bomber!

Russia still flies them...actually the US too!

They have been spotted flying of the coast of New Foundland on their Atlantic tours recently.

An old hammer can still hurt your thumb if you are not careful,and they have a sickle as well

[Old fella]

and pulling out all the stops as well, it seems...........

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/W ... story.html

[2R]

GAMECHANGER:
Russian 'Rocket' Torpedo Arms Chinese Subs
Charles R. Smith
Tuesday, April 24, 2001
Russia has developed new submarine-launched torpedos that travel at incredible speeds – perhaps as fast as the speed of sound underwater.
Scientific American reports in its May edition that these supersophisticated weapons have been linked to the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk last August, and even to the arrest and imprisonment of Edmond Pope.

Pope, an American businessman, was charged by Russian authorities with spying, specifically that he had sought to buy plans for the "ultrahigh-speed torpedo."

The magazine reports that "evidence does suggest that both incidents revolved around an amazing and little-reported technology that allows naval weapons and vessels to travel submerged at hundreds of miles per hour – in some cases, faster than the speed of sound in water. The swiftest traditional undersea technologies, in contrast, are limited to a maximum of about 80 mph."

The new technology that allows for these incredible speeds is "is based on the physical phenomenon of supercavitation."

According to Scientific American, the new generation of torpedos, some believed capabale of carrying nuclear warheads, are surrounded by a "renewable envelope of gas so that the liquid wets very little of the body's surface, thereby drastically reducing the viscous drag" on the torpedo.

The new technology "could mean a quantum leap in naval warfare that is analogous in some ways to the move from prop planes to jets or even to rockets and missiles."

In 1997 Russia announced that it had developed a high-speed unguided underwater torpedo, which has no equivalent in the West.

Code-named the Shkval or "Squall," the Russian torpedo reportedly travels so fast that no U.S. defense can stop it.

In late 2000, after the sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk, new reports began circulating that the Chinese navy had bought the Shkval torpedo.

The modern Russian weapon in Chinese navy hands has sent alarm bells ringing through the halls of the Pentagon.

"China purchased the Shkval rocket torpedo," stated Richard Fisher, a defense analyst and senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation.

"The Shkval was designed to give Soviet subs with less capable sonar the ability to kill U.S. submarines before U.S. wire-guided anti-sub torpedoes could reach their target. The Chinese navy would certainly want to have this kind of advantage over U.S. subs in the future. At the speed that it travels, the Shkval could literally punch a hole in most U.S. ships, with little need for an explosive warhead."

"This torpedo travels at a speed of 200 knots, or five to six times the speed of a normal torpedo, and is especially suited for attacking large ships such as aircraft carriers," stated Fisher.

The report that China purchased some 40 Shkval torpedoes from Russia in 1998 has been confirmed by U.S. intelligence sources. Pentagon officials also confirmed that a Chinese naval officer was on board the ill-fated Russian submarine Kursk to observe firings of the Shkval.

The Shkval rocket first came to light in the Western press in April 2000 when Russian FSB security services charged American businessman Edward Pope with spying for the U.S. According to Russian intelligence sources, Pope obtained detailed information on the rocket-powered torpedo.

A FSB statement said it confiscated "technical drawings of various equipment, recordings of his conversations with Russian citizens relating to their work in the Russian defense industry, and receipts for American dollars received by them."

The 6,000-pound Shkval rocket torpedo has a range of about 7,500 yards and can fly through the water at more than 230 miles an hour. The solid-rocket-propelled "torpedo" achieves this high speed by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the weapon in a thin layer of gas. The Shkval flies underwater inside a giant "envelope" of gas bubbles in a process called "supercavitation."

The Russian Pacific Fleet held the first tests of the Shkval torpedo in the spring of 1998. In early 1999, Russia began marketing a conventionally armed version of the Shkval high-speed underwater rocket at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi.

The Shkval is so fast that it is guided by an autopilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes. The original Shkval was designed to carry a tactical nuclear warhead detonated by a simple timer clock. However, the Russians recently began advertising a homing version, which runs out at very high speed, then slows to search for its target.

There are no evident countermeasures to the Shkval and, according to weapons experts, its deployment by Russian and Chinese naval forces has placed the U.S. Navy at a considerable disadvantage.

"We have no equivalent, its velocity would make evasive action exceedingly difficult, and it is likely that we have no defense against it," stated Jack Spencer, a defense analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

According to the Jamestown Foundation's Richard Fisher, China is acquiring a fleet of blue-water submarines armed with the deadly Shkval. In a recent defense report, Fisher noted the Chinese navy is arming itself with a deadly combination of silent submarines, supersonic nuclear tipped Stealth missiles and Shkval rocket torpedoes. Fisher warned that the new Chinese navy is capable of operating far from Asian shores.

"There are reports that the Chinese navy's current subs do not have tubes large enough to fire the Shkval. The Chinese navy has completed the acquisition of four Russian Kilo-class conventional submarines. The Kilo 636 is said to be nearly as quiet as the early version of the U.S. Los Angeles class nuclear submarine," noted Fisher.

"This very high speed torpedo would provide the PLA with the technology to build their own version, and this is a looming threat," stated Fisher.

"The next few years may also see China produce a new class of nuclear-powered submarine, the Type 093. Again benefiting from Russian technology."

The Chinese Type 093-class nuclear attack submarines are similar to Russian Victor III class first produced at the Leningrad yards in the 1970s. Each Chinese Type 093 weighs more than 5,000 tons and is over a football field in length. The Chinese type 093 submarines are armed with eight 21-inch torpedo tubes that are large enough to fire the super-fast Shkval.

"The Type 093 is projected by the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence to have a performance similar to the Russian Victor-III nuclear attack submarine. By one estimate, four to six Type 093s should enter service by 2012," concluded Fisher.


The JSF is not a GAMECHANGER.The new missiles that are capable of 270 degree lock on with 50 g turn capability and Mach 3 plus are Gamechangers.

[Expat]

This is old news. Russian technology in fast torpedoes is the best. With it, Iran can blow up anything it wishes now...I heard of Mach One speeds...

[2R]

This is old news. Russian technology in fast torpedoes is the best. With it, Iran can blow up anything it wishes now...I heard of Mach One speeds...

So sorry, i was being too cryptic and i am an extremly lazy typist.
The coincidence of the arming of the Chinese navy with weapons that nuetralize the pacific fleet and the building of fortified defences in Asia by NATO forces is so obvious i thought it would not need to be explained.
Or are you still wondering why we are in Afghanistan,it is not to build schools for little girls.
The next generation of fighter airplanes are just USELESS against the next generation of ground to air missiles.

An old friend of mine in the Submarine fleet told me "There are only two types of vessels at sea ,Submarines and targets"
Another chap from the destroyer fleet retorted "there are only two types of vessels at sea ,Destroyers and targets"
I would bet similar statements are being made by pilots and foot soldiers

[Expat]

2r,
Very good point about fortifying defenses. This whole thing is unraveling exactly as we knew it would. Cold war stuff, encircle Russia...Get close to China...

[Expat]

It came out in Wikileaks that the plans to educate childrens and women was propaganda by Washington to seduce France and Germany, as the war was not too popular in Europe.

[2R]

Dr.Watson although a fictional character.Was wounded at the battle of Maiwand,on july 27,1880.
His last conversation with Sherlock Holmes was when he asked the great detective "Why he was having the front door of their house painted yellow?".I thought it was obvious "It is for a Lemon entry my dear watson" spoke Holmes just before the fatal shot from an antiquated Jezail musket of the Afgahan war

That is the clean version of the fatal shot joke of the great detective.The dirty version involves using lemon juice for a sexual lubricant for a lemon entry my dear watson.

Most wars in the third world are quickly won by controlling the food supply.It is almost impossible to control the drugs .But if they destroy all the food in the drug growing areas ,it may force the farmers to grow food instead of opium or starve.
Hungry people will do whatever those with food tell them to do.A missionary once told me about wheat christians who became rice socialists when eating rice.And quickly converted back to christianity when the rice ran out and the missionaries gave them wheat.
Food will be the weapon of choice in the next century,as it was during the Pharohs reign.Displease the Pharohs and your entire village went without grains.
Canada should restrict food exports to countries that are hostile to our interests.That would be more effective than one thousand JSF's.