By: Ginner
- 13th March 2016 at 18:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This discussion is silly.
Of course the Canadian Air Force wants the F-35, just like I would like replace my Toyota with a Tesla model X.
As stated before; if the price is not too high they will get it.
Most likely also Denmark and Finland.
(If they decide the price is too high most likely Denmark will go for the SH IMHO).
How is the Canadian dollar doing these days? Norwegian krona has dropped like a rock the last 1-2 years, and unless the oil price recovers the Norwegian F-35 will become much more expensive than originally anticipated. The Norwegian Navy and Army people are very frustrated, the know they will have to pay a very high price for the 52 Norwegian F-35 (our government refuse to spend more money on defence and something has to give -- it will not be the F-35).
I find it obnoxious how LM marketing is constanly spat out as fact here. Every country has unique needs and constraints. The F35 may have narrow band frontal stealth and the greatest dependence on complex software of any fighter aircraft, but it does not make it the best plane, and specifically not the best plane for Canada. We are the only country in the world with our unique set of attributes and constraints and thus have a unique set of requirements. The F35 may be the best choice for the UK or Korea....but we are neither country. We are not Norway. We are not Holland.
By: Ginner
- 13th March 2016 at 18:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did Canada choose the F18 over F16 because of F18 having two engines or because the F18 was a better all weather fighter attack aircraft that was equipped with BVR missiles while F16 lacked BVR missiles for air to air and was a day light only attack aircraft for ground targets?
The selection was made in 1982. Someone with better understanding of the history of when F16 received its first BVR missiles would need to answer that.
My suspicion is F18 was chosen because it was simply was a better multi purpose aircraft in 1982. The fact that it had two engines was only a minor factor.
"Reasons for the selection listed by the Canadian Forces included two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols), an excellent radar set, and a lower cost than the F-14 or F-15. "
By: FBW
- 13th March 2016 at 18:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I find it obnoxious how LM marketing is constanly spat out as fact here. Every country has unique needs and constraints. The F35 may have narrow band frontal stealth and the greatest dependence on complex software of any fighter aircraft, but it does not make it the best plane, and specifically not the best plane for Canada. We are the only country in the world with our unique set of attributes and constraints and thus have a unique set of requirements.
I figured it would only be a matter of time before the true arguement "broke cover". And exactly where do you source that "narrow band frontal stealth"?
Which one did you collect from "Gripen4canada" blog or "best fighter for Canada" blog. They are both about the same, and both garbage.
By: Ginner
- 13th March 2016 at 18:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I figured it would only be a matter of time before the true arguement "broke cover". And exactly where do you source that "narrow band frontal stealth"?
Which one did you collect from "Gripen4canada" blog or "best fighter for Canada" blog. They are both about the same, and both garbage.
Those blogs, like this forum, are full of entertaining information about an intriguing subject. The author is no less an authority than most people posting here.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 13th March 2016 at 19:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Those blogs, like this forum, are full of entertaining information about an intriguing subject. The author is no less an authority than most people posting here.
Actually, given the sheer amount of rubbish we have had to correct on this thread already it seems they aren't half as knowledgeable as they think they are.
By: Ozair
- 13th March 2016 at 20:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are you on drugs if you go down in the US you are no more 2 hours from being picked up. Go down over the remote north of Canada you could be there for a day or two the RAF have used twins for QRA since the 60's as its crews conduct that task over a large remote area that will not change and that is why Typhoon is staying in numbers
The point stands and if you think that the RCAF operates twin engine aircraft in the vast remotes of the north without SAR cover you are mistaken. Aircrew are also trained to survive in these environments and have the basic skills and equipment necessary to survive for the day or two they may be on the ground.
As for the UK, given the only single engine fighter aircraft they have operated in the last 30 years is the Harrier I think we can both agree that the twin engine jets were more optimal for QRA than the alternative.
By: JakobS
- 13th March 2016 at 20:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
USA (F22, F15, F16, F18); wants F-35
UK (Eurofighter, Tornado, Harrier); wants F-35
Italy (Eurofighter, Tornado, Harrier)l wants F-35
Australia (F18, Super Hornet); wants F-35
Netherlands (F16); wants F-35
Norway (F16); wants F-35
Israel (F15, F16); wants F-35
Turkey (F16); wants F-35
South Korea (F-16, F15); wants F-35
RCAF wants F-35.
Guy 1 (Volvo) want's a Ferrari
Guy 2 (Audi) want's a Ferrari
Guy 3 (BMW) want's a Ferrari
Guy 4 (Audi) want's a Ferrari
Guy 5 (Mercedes) want's a Ferrari
Guy 6 (Skoda) want's a Ferrari
Guy 7 (Chrysler) want's a Ferrari
Dosen't mean they have the need for one or that they will get one.
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 13th March 2016 at 20:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Guy 1 (Volvo) want's a Ferrari
Guy 2 (Audi) want's a Ferrari
Guy 3 (BMW) want's a Ferrari
Guy 4 (Audi) want's a Ferrari
Guy 5 (Mercedes) want's a Ferrari
Guy 6 (Skoda) want's a Ferrari
Guy 7 (Chrysler) want's a Ferrari
Dosen't mean they have the need for one or that they will get one.
The problem of course is that the Rafale and Eurofighter are just as expensive as the F-35 and while the Gripen NG may be incrementally cheaper, it is very poorly suited to operating in Canada.
By: JakobS
- 13th March 2016 at 21:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem of course is that the Rafale and Eurofighter are just as expensive as the F-35 and while the Gripen NG may be incrementally cheaper, it is very poorly suited to operating in Canada.
To which fighter is best I leave to others to discuss, the point is simply that just because the air force has a favorite it dosen't mean that the government should automatically get them that.
It's like getting your 18 year old his first car, he can probably line up a lot of great arguments to why he should get a BMW M3, but that dosen't mean that he's right.
By: Ginner
- 13th March 2016 at 21:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem of course is that the Rafale and Eurofighter are just as expensive as the F-35 and while the Gripen NG may be incrementally cheaper, it is very poorly suited to operating in Canada.
How is the F35 well suited to operating in Canada and the Gripen ill-suited? I don't follow that reasoning at all.
By: Sintra
- 13th March 2016 at 21:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem of course is that the Rafale and Eurofighter are just as expensive as the F-35
That has been repeated "ad nauseum" around here for the last few months with absolutely zero evidence suporting it.
Untill now there were two competitions involving one of the two Eurocanards and the F-35A, on both of them, Japan and korea, the JSF was handily beaten on costs, and in one of the competitions, South Korea, Airbus offered 1/3 more airframes than LM for roughly the same amount of money.
The F-35A MIGHT end in the same cost bracket that evolved versions of the twins by the beggining of the twenties, "might" being the correct word.
By: Ginner
- 13th March 2016 at 21:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That has been repeated "ad nauseum" around here for the last few months with absolutely zero evidence suporting it.
Untill now there were two competitions involving one of the two Eurocanards and the F-35A, on both of them, Japan and korea, the JSF was handily beaten on costs, and in one of the competitions, South Korea, Airbus offered 1/3 more airframes than LM for roughly the same amount of money.
The F-35A MIGHT end in the same cost bracket that evolved versions of the twins by the beggining of the twenties, "might" being the correct word.
Do partners get to buy aircraft cheaper? I think EF and Dassault are moving towards more price competitive offers but the offset and technology transfer seem to make the total program costs increase quite a bit.
By: Vnomad
- 13th March 2016 at 22:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That has been repeated "ad nauseum" around here for the last few months with absolutely zero evidence suporting it.
Untill now there were two competitions involving one of the two Eurocanards and the F-35A, on both of them, Japan and korea, the JSF was handily beaten on costs, and in one of the competitions, South Korea, Airbus offered 1/3 more airframes than LM for roughly the same amount of money.
I can understand the F-15 'handily' beating the F-35, since its already operational in both air forces, but how do you figure the same for the Eurofighter? As I recall, the Eurofighter was rejected by SK on a technicality, as a result of which the actual financial details of its bid remain hazy.
Offering 60 aircraft for the same amount (i.e. $7 bn) would put the EF's acquisition cost at about $116 mil each, which clearly sounds.. off, to say the least. I'd imagine even Saab would be hard pressed to offer the Gripen E on the same terms.
The F-35A MIGHT end in the same cost bracket that evolved versions of the twins by the beggining of the twenties, "might" being the correct word.
In terms of flyaway costs it should broadly match them by 2019, if the current cost curve holds steady. Support costs might be higher, but the weapons complement will definitely be far cheaper.
By: Tempest414
- 13th March 2016 at 22:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The point stands and if you think that the RCAF operates twin engine aircraft in the vast remotes of the north without SAR cover you are mistaken. Aircrew are also trained to survive in these environments and have the basic skills and equipment necessary to survive for the day or two they may be on the ground.
As for the UK, given the only single engine fighter aircraft they have operated in the last 30 years is the Harrier I think we can both agree that the twin engine jets were more optimal for QRA than the alternative.
Lightning , Tornado F3, Typhoon and F4 were all ordered if the task in mind
By: hopsalot
- 13th March 2016 at 23:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That has been repeated "ad nauseum" around here for the last few months with absolutely zero evidence suporting it.
Untill now there were two competitions involving one of the two Eurocanards and the F-35A, on both of them, Japan and korea, the JSF was handily beaten on costs, and in one of the competitions, South Korea, Airbus offered 1/3 more airframes than LM for roughly the same amount of money.
The F-35A MIGHT end in the same cost bracket that evolved versions of the twins by the beggining of the twenties, "might" being the correct word.
The F-35 was more expensive at the time of those competitions, but consider that its price has already dropped considerably and will have dropped still further by the time Canada orders...
By: eagle
- 13th March 2016 at 23:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And over the subsequent years, the F-16 proved itself to be a safer aircraft than the F-18. F-16 accidents F-18 accidents
That data isn't really useful in this case as it doesn't say anything about accident cause. I'm pretty sure the F-18 has a higher loss rate because naval aviation is more dangerous f.e.
Usually, things like that are considered when selecting a fighter. If you go for a single engined jet, you fully expect to lose a certain percentage more of your fleet over its lifespan. Unless of course the choice is purely political and/or only the initial lower cost of single engined jets are considered (for political reasons...). That being said, I think statistics show that single engined jets are still cheaper considering everything. Not counting possible loss of life of course...
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 13th March 2016 at 18:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I find it obnoxious how LM marketing is constanly spat out as fact here. Every country has unique needs and constraints. The F35 may have narrow band frontal stealth and the greatest dependence on complex software of any fighter aircraft, but it does not make it the best plane, and specifically not the best plane for Canada. We are the only country in the world with our unique set of attributes and constraints and thus have a unique set of requirements. The F35 may be the best choice for the UK or Korea....but we are neither country. We are not Norway. We are not Holland.
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 13th March 2016 at 18:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Reasons for the selection listed by the Canadian Forces included two engines for reliability (considered essential for conducting Arctic sovereignty and over-the-water patrols), an excellent radar set, and a lower cost than the F-14 or F-15. "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Fighter_Aircraft_Project
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 13th March 2016 at 18:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I figured it would only be a matter of time before the true arguement "broke cover". And exactly where do you source that "narrow band frontal stealth"?
Which one did you collect from "Gripen4canada" blog or "best fighter for Canada" blog. They are both about the same, and both garbage.
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 13th March 2016 at 18:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Those blogs, like this forum, are full of entertaining information about an intriguing subject. The author is no less an authority than most people posting here.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 13th March 2016 at 19:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually, given the sheer amount of rubbish we have had to correct on this thread already it seems they aren't half as knowledgeable as they think they are.
Posts: 815
By: Ozair - 13th March 2016 at 20:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The point stands and if you think that the RCAF operates twin engine aircraft in the vast remotes of the north without SAR cover you are mistaken. Aircrew are also trained to survive in these environments and have the basic skills and equipment necessary to survive for the day or two they may be on the ground.
As for the UK, given the only single engine fighter aircraft they have operated in the last 30 years is the Harrier I think we can both agree that the twin engine jets were more optimal for QRA than the alternative.
Posts: 149
By: JakobS - 13th March 2016 at 20:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Guy 1 (Volvo) want's a Ferrari
Guy 2 (Audi) want's a Ferrari
Guy 3 (BMW) want's a Ferrari
Guy 4 (Audi) want's a Ferrari
Guy 5 (Mercedes) want's a Ferrari
Guy 6 (Skoda) want's a Ferrari
Guy 7 (Chrysler) want's a Ferrari
Dosen't mean they have the need for one or that they will get one.
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 13th March 2016 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem of course is that the Rafale and Eurofighter are just as expensive as the F-35 and while the Gripen NG may be incrementally cheaper, it is very poorly suited to operating in Canada.
Posts: 149
By: JakobS - 13th March 2016 at 21:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To which fighter is best I leave to others to discuss, the point is simply that just because the air force has a favorite it dosen't mean that the government should automatically get them that.
It's like getting your 18 year old his first car, he can probably line up a lot of great arguments to why he should get a BMW M3, but that dosen't mean that he's right.
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 13th March 2016 at 21:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How is the F35 well suited to operating in Canada and the Gripen ill-suited? I don't follow that reasoning at all.
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 13th March 2016 at 21:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That has been repeated "ad nauseum" around here for the last few months with absolutely zero evidence suporting it.
Untill now there were two competitions involving one of the two Eurocanards and the F-35A, on both of them, Japan and korea, the JSF was handily beaten on costs, and in one of the competitions, South Korea, Airbus offered 1/3 more airframes than LM for roughly the same amount of money.
The F-35A MIGHT end in the same cost bracket that evolved versions of the twins by the beggining of the twenties, "might" being the correct word.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 13th March 2016 at 21:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
F-35 stealth can affect even AWACS radar so it is not exactly narrow band, most AWACS use S, L band radar
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eurofighter-boasts-typhoon-reign-over-f-35-345265/
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 13th March 2016 at 21:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do partners get to buy aircraft cheaper? I think EF and Dassault are moving towards more price competitive offers but the offset and technology transfer seem to make the total program costs increase quite a bit.
Posts: 2,661
By: Vnomad - 13th March 2016 at 22:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can understand the F-15 'handily' beating the F-35, since its already operational in both air forces, but how do you figure the same for the Eurofighter? As I recall, the Eurofighter was rejected by SK on a technicality, as a result of which the actual financial details of its bid remain hazy.
Offering 60 aircraft for the same amount (i.e. $7 bn) would put the EF's acquisition cost at about $116 mil each, which clearly sounds.. off, to say the least. I'd imagine even Saab would be hard pressed to offer the Gripen E on the same terms.
In terms of flyaway costs it should broadly match them by 2019, if the current cost curve holds steady. Support costs might be higher, but the weapons complement will definitely be far cheaper.
Posts: 976
By: Tempest414 - 13th March 2016 at 22:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lightning , Tornado F3, Typhoon and F4 were all ordered if the task in mind
Posts: 976
By: Tempest414 - 13th March 2016 at 23:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Really? go have a look and a think
Posts: 119
By: Ginner - 13th March 2016 at 23:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This was a good point-counterpoint discussion on the merits of a competition. http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/if-f-35-is-the-right-aircraft-for-canada-it-would-win-an-open-competition-says-former-procurement-chief
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 13th March 2016 at 23:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-35 was more expensive at the time of those competitions, but consider that its price has already dropped considerably and will have dropped still further by the time Canada orders...
Posts: 2,271
By: eagle - 13th March 2016 at 23:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That data isn't really useful in this case as it doesn't say anything about accident cause. I'm pretty sure the F-18 has a higher loss rate because naval aviation is more dangerous f.e.
Here's some good data:
USAF Single Engine Fighter/Attack Engine-Related Class A Rates
USAF Twin Engine Fighter/Attack Engine-Related Class A Statistics
Compare F-15 and F-16 engine related loss rates with the same engine.
Usually, things like that are considered when selecting a fighter. If you go for a single engined jet, you fully expect to lose a certain percentage more of your fleet over its lifespan. Unless of course the choice is purely political and/or only the initial lower cost of single engined jets are considered (for political reasons...). That being said, I think statistics show that single engined jets are still cheaper considering everything. Not counting possible loss of life of course...
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 13th March 2016 at 23:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I wonder if lobbying cost will part of the offset? (at least, make them local)