F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[T28B]

Brat, the Canadian government does not have the deep purse that their southern neighbor does, so they have to be careful with their expenditures. In any major defense acquisition policy, both cost and opportunity cost have to be addressed.

There is no major acquisition decision that is not political, because the politicians have to account for how public funds are spent. The opportunity cost of a very expensive decision is that one cannot spend those same funds on something else whose requirement was validated. Within the past decade or so, the Canadian government has had to answer for an expensive helicopter acquisition decision that didn't turn out as expected. Being recently bitten may inform their caution now.

[George K Lee]

As for the bad news that is continually being peddled around about the F-35, there certainly have been problems, but, also a great deal of overblown hysteria.

There have been a large number of various critical Government teams studying the F-35 purchases. All but Canada’s, seem to have been satisfied that the various contentious issues are being attended to.

Brat,

Look back on this thread. Look back on any other forum. How many times since 2008 can you find this kind of stuff posted by shills and fanboys?

So tell me, tell me, Brat - where are we, against the 2008 schedule? The 2010 schedule? The 2013-finally-we've-got-this-sorted schedule?

Cough it up, Brat - how many fully-and-formally-tested, in-service F-35s are there, that meet the end-of-SDD spec as contracted in 2001? Answers now or forever hold your peace.

Now think - how much have you, and the other shills and fanbois, contributed to anyone's national defense (other than China's) by your passionate defense of your fetish project?

[chopper2004]

F-35 May be out of German Tonka replacement

Germany Reportedly Favors Typhoon to Replace Tornado, Also Eyeing F-15, F/A-18 - The Drive

For the usual reasons - access to codes , etc

Cheers

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by George K Lee

As for the bad news that is continually being peddled around about the F-35, there certainly have been problems, but, also a great deal of overblown hysteria.

There have been a large number of various critical Government teams studying the F-35 purchases. All but Canada’s, seem to have been satisfied that the various contentious issues are being attended to.

Brat,

Look back on this thread. Look back on any other forum. How many times since 2008 can you find this kind of stuff posted by shills and fanboys?

So tell me, tell me, Brat - where are we, against the 2008 schedule? The 2010 schedule? The 2013-finally-we've-got-this-sorted schedule?

Cough it up, Brat - how many fully-and-formally-tested, in-service F-35s are there, that meet the end-of-SDD spec as contracted in 2001? Answers now or forever hold your peace.

Now think - how much have you, and the other shills and fanbois, contributed to anyone's national defense (other than China's) by your passionate defense of your fetish project?

108 batch 2's that cannot affordably be made up into the BASIC combat level that's some serious investment right there.....

[Brat]

Look back on this thread. Look back on any other forum. How many times since 2008 can you find this kind of stuff posted by shills and fanboys?

As many times as there doom gloom and disaster “turkey” stories put around by the likes of you.

The ‘fanbois’ as you so quaintly put it, are the pilots who are presently flying them, analysts who are studying how they are performing in the various exercises they have participated in, and the Services who are presently deploying them.

Various countries have had experts with large amounts of experience and expertise in various fields, with beancounters behind them, study the F-35, and have committed themselves to the project and the machine.

There has never been any other fighter project of this size and complexity, and as I have already said there have been many problems along the way.

So despite the “turkey’ gobblers the F-35 hasn’t been cancelled, is in production, and dealing with the various delays inherent in any complex project of this kind.

[Brat]

Re the Canadian purse and defence. In 2016 NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg released his annual state-of-the-alliance report noting that it was an agreement by all members to spend two per cent of GDP on defence.

In the report it was noted that Canada saw bump in defence spending in 2016, which pushed the percentage of its GDP spent on defence from 0.98 to 1.02.

An increase that moved Canada to 20th from 23rd in terms of spending among NATO's 28 allies, putting it in a tie with Hungary and Slovenia.

It was the smallest share of GDP that Canada has spent on defence since 2012. Only Belgium, Iceland, Luxembourg Spain and Czech Republic spent less.

Short arms, deep pockets.

[glad rag]

In other words there NOT buying F35

[jindabyne]

there? ----

[T28B]

Brat, the arguments and fingerpointing over defense spending in NATO has a long and rancorous history over the course of five or six decades, and remains a source of considerable frustration to the governments who tend to achieve that goal versus those who don't even try.

Short arms, deep pockets.

Perhaps. The very real political problem is that in Canada, in order for the government to realistically support an increase to 2% (be it in the next year or in the next five years) that increase in defense spending has to be sold politically both within parliament and to the public at large. I have serious doubts that "we need to increase our defense spending to make sure we can buy F-35's" is how the Canadian government's leaders who support an increase will try to sell the increase (in the usual political process of back scratching and deal making).
F-35 isn't the only program, nor project, that needs funding or upgrade.

[George K Lee]

So, Brat, you are evading my question with bluster and bloviation. Par for the course.

So would you care to identify and quote the "doom and gloom disaster turkey stories"?

Maybe you might want to look back at those GAO and JET predictions from 2008-09, about how the jet might not be operational until 2015?

Or the reports about how the B couldn't VL except on AM-2 or special concrete?

Seriously, Brat, if you actually look back at the "doom and gloom", the historic pattern is that it's been underestimated, if anything. Not that it can't get fixed, but it's dumber-than-dirt to think that everything is puppies-and-rainbows from now on. There's work to be done, and mindless cheerleading doesn't help one bit.

[tdracer]

Isn't Canada's fundamental problem with the F-35 that they believe a single engine combat aircraft is inherently unsuitable for their climatically hostile (and remote) northern territories?
Hard to see how the F-35 would ever overcome that problem...

[Brat]

versus those who don't even try.

Canada’s ranking would suggest that is a applicable description.

[George K Lee]

Percentage of GDP is a somewhat vacuous measure of defense spending in any event. If you land a new job and get a 20% raise, do you automatically trade in your car for one that's 20% more expensive? Spend one-fifth more on groceries? Turn up the heat and turn down the air-con so the gas and electric bills go up?

Canada has two land borders with the same non-aggressive neighbor. Its major cities and assets are located thousands of miles from the major cities of any other nation. It is not a nuclear power. Its non-alliance, non-overeseas defense needs are thus rather minimal.

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Isn't Canada's fundamental problem with the F-35 that they believe a single engine combat aircraft is inherently unsuitable for their climatically hostile (and remote) northern territories?
Hard to see how the F-35 would ever overcome that problem...

It has often been cited as a concern for Canada, but with the USAF regularly flying F-16s over Alaska, and Norway doing the same over its just as harsh northern territories (not to mention the Swedes with their Gripens), I'm not sure how much of an issue it really needs to be.

Indeed, single-engine operations are inordinately safer today than they were when Canada operated the CF-104 seemingly without having the same concerns.

[ORAC]

The USAF might well fly F-16s from Elmendorf during exercises in the spring and summer when SAR is avaialable and the weather temperate (though getting bitten to death by insects is a danger). But the resident air wing is equipped with twin engined F-22s

[melmothtw]

Originally Posted by ORAC

The USAF might well fly F-16s from Elmendorf during exercises in the spring and summer when SAR is avaialable and the weather temperate (though getting bitten to death by insects is a danger). But the resident air wing is equipped with twin engined F-22s

Looks pretty wintery to me https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...lag-Alaska.jpg

http://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/fo...6s_in_snow.jpg

And the Norwegians and Swedes, and Canadian themselves with the CF-104?

[George K Lee]

The Canadians have always gone with twins for Northern air defense - CF-100, CF-105, Voodoo and F/A-18.

The Swedes on the other hand have never seriously contemplated a twin-engine fighter (while operating a twin-jet trainer for ever). But you'll notice that their fighter engines, or the main bits of their fighter engines (JT8D-based RM8, F404-based RM12), have always been well wrung out by someone else before they get into RSwAF service.

[melmothtw]

CF-105? Nice try ;-) The technology of the day required that most of those fighters you list had two engines, regardless of where they were operated.

The Swedes on the other hand have never seriously contemplated a twin-engine fighter (while operating a twin-jet trainer for ever). But you'll notice that their fighter engines, or the main bits of their fighter engines (JT8D-based RM8, F404-based RM12), have always been well wrung out by someone else before they get into RSwAF service.

I'd suggest that there will likely be far more diagnostic and analytical information available for the F135 (and probably actual flying hours) by the time that Canada comes to the F-35.

[George K Lee]

I'd suggest that there will likely be far more diagnostic and analytical information available for the F135 (and probably actual flying hours) by the time that Canada comes to the F-35.

Something will have gone horribly pear-shaped if there isn't. Actually I don't think a single engine is an automatic disqualifying factor for the RCAF mission these days.

And of course the Arrow had twin engines for speed, range and weapon capacity, all well in excess of many contemporary fighters. Arrow and J-20 are an interesting comparison - maybe the Canadians should invite a bid from Chengdu?

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by George K Lee

I'd suggest that there will likely be far more diagnostic and analytical information available for the F135 (and probably actual flying hours) by the time that Canada comes to the F-35.

Something will have gone horribly pear-shaped if there isn't. Actually I don't think a single engine is an automatic disqualifying factor for the RCAF mission these days.

And of course the Arrow had twin engines for speed, range and weapon capacity, all well in excess of many contemporary fighters. Arrow and J-20 are an interesting comparison - maybe the Canadians should invite a bid from Chengdu?

Iirc, even the famed Arrow only had about a 400 mile mission radius, enough to cover Canada's industrial core, but nowhere near what it would take to patrol the entire country. Why Canada still needs fast jets today seems a valid question. Pending a plausible answer, perhaps it makes sense to minimize the associated outlays.