Canadas Next Fighter

[NineLine]

And on top of that what if it doesn't perform as required in our conditions? Has the F35 been tested IN Canada? Maybe it will be like iPhones and not boot up if it's too cold outside.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

Heavy extreme weather testing has been done on the F-35, I doubt that will be an issue, the only issue for the F-35 to overcome for Canada is all the bad press it has gotten and the fact that it became a campaign promise to scrap.

[NineLine]

The amount of ignorance in this statement is painful :doh:

 

Dont be rude, lets play nice.

[mjmorrow]

I would like to see Canada remain in the F-35 program even if the US has to somewhat subsidize it. With tensions heating back up, it would be nice to have some 5th-gen fighters covering near the arctic.

 

While we have F-22s in Alaska, they can't really cover further East over the North Pole.

 

Whatever plane Canada goes with, I would certainly hope that the USA does not subsidize any Canadian F-35's, rather allow the free market to determine what Canada ultimately goes with. How would the US cover subsidizing Canadian f-35's, anyway? We can borrow money, chase the private sector out of debt securities, which will ration out potential private industry investment in US job creation, US infrastructure improvement, new commercial enterprise development, innovation, etc. We can raise US taxes. We can cut American social programs. Take resources out of the hands of our citizens to give to someone else's. We can do some combination of all three.

 

But why bother? So Canada will have a plane Canada may not want otherwise? So we can show favoritism for one maker of fighter planes over all others, create more corporate Welfare at a time when the average American already pays several thousand dollars in taxes that go to companies that do need the handouts? Tensions are heating up? Bah! So create jobs in the USA, instead of in places that would cause, "Tensions to heat up." Get the US Government to require Multi Domestic organizational Design, instead of letting companies flood the USA with goods made in places that may be hostile to US security interests, causing, "Tensions to heat up." If Global companies want to invest in those places, let them, but insist that their goods sold in the US are made in the US, not in those places that are engaging in behaviors that are hostile to our best security interests. Invest in carbon free energy technology, don't depend on fossil fuels from countries that would use the money they make off of fossil fuels to engage in behaviors that allow, "Tensions to heat up." Don't waste our resources on subsidizing Canadian F-35's, to deal with easily preventable tensions in the World.

 

Canada is a rich country. If Canada doesn't want to pay for F-35's and they want something else, no big deal.

 

:thumbup: MJ

Edited December 3, 2015 by mjmorrow

[GGTharos]

Let me google that for you ...

 

Oh look!

 

https://www.google.ca/search?q=F-35+cold&biw=1787&bih=826&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9zfDV_7_JAhXM7yYKHcJrAugQ_AUIBigB&dpr=0.9

 

The USAF operates Raptors and Eagles in northern Alaska, they have experience with all weather types.

 

And on top of that what if it doesn't perform as required in our conditions? Has the F35 been tested IN Canada? Maybe it will be like iPhones and not boot up if it's too cold outside.

[Fer_Fer]

The three services share a procurement schedule which is split among the three variants. The navy reduced its recent allotments, but the Marine Corps increased theirs by a comparable amount, which in effect means, the Navy is purchasing more F-35Bs for the Marines, a short term shift to handle current realities, the Navy isn't jumping out of the program by any stretch of the imagination.

 

You fail to grasp the Point..

Ask A marine if he considers himself to be part of the navy.... the USN might be responsible for the procurement, but they don't make the decisions of said procurement. In other words, while the receipt might say that the USN buys them, the reality is that the whole procurement, its numbers etc are done by the USMC.

Saying the USN is buying F-35Bs is factually incorrect, as is it to lump the USMC buy with the USN buy.....

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

The amount of ignorance in this statement is painful :doh:

 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2015/f-35-climatic-testing.html

I was not made aware of the testing. Again simulated testing and feild testing are not the same. My question was if any actual feild testing in Canada has been done.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Tirak]

You fail to grasp the Point..

Ask A marine if he considers himself to be part of the navy.... the USN might be responsible for the procurement, but they don't make the decisions of said procurement. In other words, while the receipt might say that the USN buys them, the reality is that the whole procurement, its numbers etc are done by the USMC.

Saying the USN is buying F-35Bs is factually incorrect, as is it to lump the USMC buy with the USN buy.....

 

The distribution of the buy runs is dictated by agreement of the three forces, the navy shifted purchase from its F-35Cs, into F-35Bs for the Marines. Thus, as I said before, in effect the Navy is buying F-35s for the Marines. :doh:

[Tirak]

I was not made aware of the testing. Again simulated testing and feild testing are not the same. My question was if any actual feild testing in Canada has been done.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

Allow me to put this into perspective for you. An aircraft flying at 35,000ft will encounter temperatures of -55 degrees Celsius, so running in cold temperatures isn't the question, the question is starting, which testing has shown the plane will do after being frozen for a few days down to at least -40 degrees.

 

Temperature is not an issue.

[Fer_Fer]

The distribution of the buy runs is dictated by agreement of the three forces, the navy shifted purchase from its F-35Cs, into F-35Bs for the Marines. Thus, as I said before, in effect the Navy is buying F-35s for the Marines. :doh:

 

ehm no?

the USN scaled back the Buy, the USMC did not up their Buy. Or if they did, there is no mention of it in Congress reports..... So, the amount of F-35's that will be bought in Total has gone down...

[Tirak]

ehm no?

the USN scaled back the Buy, the USMC did not up their Buy. Or if they did, there is no mention of it in Congress reports..... So, the amount of F-35's that will be bought in Total has gone down...

 

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=1167062f82b72cc7cef50ff189cd1e6d&tab=core&_cview=1

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27584&sid=1eb39cdfa8b7ba7c9b311b594c0fb9a8

[NineLine]

Thread is about Canada's next fighter, not the US Navy ;)

[Fer_Fer]

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=1167062f82b72cc7cef50ff189cd1e6d&tab=core&_cview=1

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27584&sid=1eb39cdfa8b7ba7c9b311b594c0fb9a8

 

You link a contract of a Lot 11...... which has no bearing on the discussion at it links up nicely with what i stated earlier..... that the USN is buying 4 F-35Cs. Not your point that Said USN is buying increased numbers of B's, which isn't supported by any of that link.

and you failed to prove your point.

Although i will admit i should have clarified we are talking total frames here, not initial production.

[Gladman]

I think we should build the CF-100 Canuck Mk.2. Put a flux capacitor and a relay oscillator in that bad boy. If anybody wants to mess with us, we just go back in time and step on a butterfly.

 

Done and done.

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

It would be nice to have the plane built and designed in Canada. Just restore national pride and flex our own technological muscles. I understand the desire for the F35 and its new tech but asking pilots they would rather the SH or ASH over the F35 simply because it's more reliable at this stage and it's more survivable in a combat zone. In reference to the part where someone said that the sh and cf188 share no compatability that is false 65 percent of the tools equipment and parts are interchangeable the only late things are the air frames and larger section of the skin. Transitions with be seamless and more cost effective than going with the 35 because the H and SH share a very very similar cockpit layout illbeit more digitalised.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[GGTharos]

I understand the desire for the F35 and its new tech but asking pilots they would rather the SH or ASH over the F35 simply because it's more reliable at this stage and it's more survivable in a combat zone.

 

What pilots said that? The only way an A/SH is more surviveable is in the case of a hit to one engine. Overall surviveability and reliability will go to the F-35 in no time flat, so what's that all about?

 

In reference to the part where someone said that the sh and cf188 share no compatability that is false 65 percent of the tools equipment and parts are interchangeable the only late things are the air frames and larger section of the skin.

 

That's incorrect. The cockpit isn't the same, the computers and radars aren't the same, the engines aren't the same. Where are you getting 65% from?

 

Largely anything in the CF-188's is useless for an A/SH.

 

Transitions with be seamless and more cost effective than going with the 35 because the H and SH share a very very similar cockpit layout illbeit more digitalised.

 

About as seamless as switching to an F-35. It's really funny to see people call such a transition 'seamless' when the entire functionality of the aircraft is different.

[Gladman]

About as seamless as switching to an F-35. It's really funny to see people call such a transition 'seamless' when the entire functionality of the aircraft is different.

 

 

Certainly not seamless but a maintainer at CFB Cold Lake did tell me the transition to the Super Hornet would be easier given the same Boeing mindset would be present. A number of the specialty tools would be the same and less overall training would be needed.

[GGTharos]

Sure. Still not worth it. :)

 

In the end it's just planning to keep an aircraft that'll go obsolete quickly. Where are the savings in that?

 

The new hornets are in the middle of their maintenance bathtub, the F-35's are at the beginning. Things only look cheaper.

[Gladman]

Well, the few people that I know at Cold Lake certainly do disagree with your thoughts. Right or wrong.

[GGTharos]

Yeah, ok. I know people too :)

[NineLine]

Its the internet, everyone knows people ;)

[mjmorrow]

Well, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Government wants to consider less expensive alternatives. He defines the primary mission for a future fighter being the defense of North America. He wants an open and competitive process, to help find an aircraft that is less expensive than the F-35, featuring bids with guaranteed industrial benefits to Canadian Companies and Canadian workers.

 

Would the F-18 ASH be a good replacement for the F-35? It might be cheaper than the F-35, but would it guarantee industrial benefits to Canadian companies and Canadian workers? The F-35 program has benefited Canadian companies and Canadian workers, but at questionable cost to the Canadian taxpayer. The Trudeau Government seeks creating sustainable jobs in Canada, but without growing the Canadian defense budget. The sustainability of benefits to Canadian companies and Canadian jobs connected to the F-35 project has been called into question.

 

Spending more on the F-35 may mean that Canada has to cut back in other ways that she currently contributes to the defense of North America or face spending more on defense. If Canada spends more on defense, it may mean that Canadians have to pay more in taxes, that Canada has to borrow money and that will inhibit private industry investment in jobs, infrastructure, innovation, and new commercial enterprise development. Higher defense spending could lead to cuts in Canadian social programs, too. So, the practical value of the F-35, given that her primary task is the defense of North America, has been called into question and will be addressed through an open competitive process. There will be a competition to find a lower cost alternative to The F-35. It will be interesting to see which plane Canada ends up purchasing.

 

We shall see what comes of the competition. :thumbup: MJ

Edited December 3, 2015 by mjmorrow

[NineLine]

Honestly the F-35 camp shouldnt worry, if theirs is the best bang for the buck, it will be the choice after this new study...

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

What pilots said that? The only way an A/SH is more surviveable is in the case of a hit to one engine. Overall surviveability and reliability will go to the F-35 in no time flat, so what's that all about?

 

 

 

That's incorrect. The cockpit isn't the same, the computers and radars aren't the same, the engines aren't the same. Where are you getting 65% from?

 

Largely anything in the CF-188's is useless for an A/SH.

 

 

 

About as seamless as switching to an F-35. It's really funny to see people call such a transition 'seamless' when the entire functionality of the aircraft is different.

Actually doing social assistance work a with CF personelle returning from combat deployments overseas and finding a common ground to talk on while we helped them reintegrate to civy life. Reason for why u cannot reveal names and specificities due to confidentiality agreements. But I can tell you that for sure they like the sound of the hornet better than a flying computer.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[Gladman]

Time will tell.

 

I can only assume that some of the manufacturing could be done in Canada if the SH was awarded. It has been done in the past with the F-5 and etc. I dunno, its a good point.

Given everybody in this thread seems to know everything (kidding), we should just start our own company and base it on Boeing requirements to ensure we really know whats going on. :)

[GGTharos]

I know you can't reveal names, I'm not asking for that. :)

 

I can tell you right now I like the idea of a 10lbs burger, but I'd probably change my mind very quickly if I got to experience it, so a comment in the vain of 'they like the sound of ...' doesn't really mean much to me.

 

I care about analysis, not what ideas someone likes. And FYI, the A/SH is a flying computer.