The F-35

[boestar]

Canada is a supplier to all kinds of programs in the US for the military as well as civilian contracts.  Canada has some of the best aerospace electronics and communications companies and our expertise in the field is well known.

That being said, we should be building our own planes and selling them around the world.

[Guest]

Another country signs on for the F35s... 

Denmark approves purchase of Lockheed F-35 jets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NC0609_F35

CTV News Channel: Denmark purchases 27 F-35s

 

 

Denmark became the eleventh nation overall to buy F-35 jets when the country’s Parliament ratified a deal Thursday morning. Mercedes Stephen

 

 

11

11

CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Thursday, June 9, 2016 9:04AM EDT

Denmark's federal government has ratified the purchase of a fleet of F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin.

The Danish government said in a news release that it plans to gradually replace its existing F-16 aircraft with F-35 jets over a six-year period, beginning in 2021.

The deal is worth approximately CDN$3.9 billion, according to the news release.

[Guest]

And now the game changes from "Softball" to "Hardball"  The question I have, would a change to another fighter still return a better cost to Canada including the lost contracts and taxes or would our cost be greater than if we continued on with the F-35 purchase?

Lockheed Martin warns it will pull $825M in F-35 contracts if Canada buys another jet

Canadian companies could stand to lose at least $10B over lifetime of aircraft

By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Jun 10, 2016 7:00 PM ET Last Updated: Jun 10, 2016 7:00 PM ET

• Baloney Meter: Is there a capability gap when it comes to fighter jets?
• RCAF to take until October 2017 to decide on CF-18 upgrade
• Liberals miss payment for Canada's inclusion in F-35 consortium
• U.S. 'anxious' to know Canada's decision on F-35s, says Pentagon official
• Liberals not closing the door on F-35 purchase just yet
• Would scrapping F-35 plan 'crater' Canada's aerospace industry?

U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin is warning Canada that $825 million in aerospace industrial contracts signed with Canadian companies to build and equip F-35 jets would be moved to other partner nations if the Trudeau government decides to buy a different fighter jet.

Steve Over, the company's director of F-35 international business development, says other countries that have already committed to buying the stealth jet are clamouring for the work.

"It's not really a threat," Over said in an interview with CBC News. "I don't want it perceived as a threat, but we will have no choice, if Canada walks away from F-35, except to relocate work in Canada to other purchasing nations."

By the end of the year, Over said he expects the value of Canadian parts and sustainment contracts to reach $1 billion, with an anticipated lifetime value of $10 billion or more.

• Baloney Meter: Is there a capability gap when it comes to fighter jets?
• Liberals cite CF-18 'capability gap' as upgrades in limbo
• Liberals miss membership payment to stay in F-35 consortium

The comments mark a sharp escalation in the war of words over the Liberal government's efforts to speed up the replacement of the Royal Canadian Air Force's current fleet of CF-18s fighters.

During the 2015 election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised not to buy the F-35 and instead go with a cheaper alternative. Lockheed Martin remained silent at the time, regarding the comments as campaign rhetoric.

Under questioning this week, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan refused to exclude the notion of a sole-source purchase of brand new Boeing Super Hornet fighters, despite a campaign promise for an open bidding process.

The deputy minister of material at DND, Pat Finn, told a House of Commons committee Thursday that all options, from sole-source to full-blown competition, were being studied by the government, but no decision had been made.

Change in tone

Earlier in the week, Lockheed Martin officials seemed content to pull their punches when it came to the industrial benefits question, saying only that they would "evaluate their options."

Even going back to 2013, months after the Harper government put the acquisition of the F-35 on hold, company officials were soft-pedalling the consequences, suggesting that if Canada went in a different direction, existing contracts would remain safe but no new work would be offered.

But all of that was tossed aside Friday as Over and other company executives made it clear that existing contracts would be honoured until renewal, and once they expire, they would go to nations participating in the program.

"If, in that most negative scenario where Canada chose to purchase a different airplane, we would have to take those future opportunities that are today envisioned for Canadian industry and we'd have to offer it to countries that are purchasing the airplane," he said. 

Losing future contracts

The example he offered was Mississauga, Ont.-based Magellan Aerospace's 20-year, $1.2-billion subcontract from BAE Systems Inc. to build the jet's tail fins.

"So Magellan would just no longer be offered the opportunity to produce horizontal stabilizers," Over said. 

A 2006 memorandum setting up Canada's participation in the development of the stealth fighter was signed by the Conservative government with the implicit suggestion the country was in for the long haul.

"The government of Canada and Lockheed committed together that we would put this industrial work in Canada, assuming that Canada bought airplanes, and we can't meet our commitments around the rest of the partnership if Canada doesn't buy the airplane," said Over.

"We want to approach this in a good-faith effort, but Canada is going to have to help us with that."

There are approximately 110 Canadian companies working on the F-35.

Industry warns of lost money, jobs

Unlike other defence procurement contracts, the stealth fighter is unique in that Canadian companies don't get guaranteed work. They are required to compete and work collaboratively to keep costs down.

The Lockheed Martin warning comes one day after an open letter published by Canadian companies involved in the program expressed fears about what would happen to them if the Trudeau government went with another plane.

"Not selecting the F-35 will set off a chain of events that will see hundreds of millions of investment dollars lost and high-tech jobs leaving Canada, going to countries who are buying the F-35," said the letter.  

"Sole-sourcing a legacy aircraft will leave Canadian industry in the unfavourable position of working on 30-year-old technology over a finite period of time, with little opportunity to progress Canada's aerospace capabilities globally. The future landscape of the aerospace and defence industry in Canada will be permanently affected in an adverse manner."

The Liberals have attempted to justify their desire to move quickly — and possibly avoid an open competition — by saying the air force is facing a "capability gap," which means it may not have enough fighters to live up to its domestic and international obligations.

In the Commons Friday, Liberal MP John McKay, the parliamentary secretary for defence, put the blame on the previous Conservative government.

He said only 20 of the air force's 77 CF-18s will be available for service by 2025 if circumstances remain the same.

[Maverick]

Well, considering that Dassault has offered 100% technology transfer and building pf Rafale' in Canada I think the decision is getting easier.

[Kasey]

On 6/9/2016 at 7:53 AM, Malcolm said:

Another country signs on for the F35s... 

Denmark approves purchase of Lockheed F-35 jets

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NC0609_F35

CTV News Channel: Denmark purchases 27 F-35s

 

 

Denmark became the eleventh nation overall to buy F-35 jets when the country’s Parliament ratified a deal Thursday morning. Mercedes Stephen

 

 

11

11

 

CTVNews.ca Staff
Published Thursday, June 9, 2016 9:04AM EDT

Denmark's federal government has ratified the purchase of a fleet of F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin.

The Danish government said in a news release that it plans to gradually replace its existing F-16 aircraft with F-35 jets over a six-year period, beginning in 2021.

The deal is worth approximately CDN$3.9 billion, according to the news release.

And all that with a population less than Ontario, Go figure $$$

Quote

 

[conehead]

8 hours ago, Maverick said:

Well, considering that Dassault has offered 100% technology transfer and building pf Rafale' in Canada I think the decision is getting easier.

Source please?

[Guest]

Looking at the options:

http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/

[Dork02]

The Cyclone is a Liberal Creation. How is that machine working anyway...?

How many billions of cancellation dollars have been spent and how many pilots have been killed as a result of this moronic EH 101 decision. Has the Sea King been retired after that 1991/1992 Liberal decision?

I know know of two reported deaths and two crashes reported since the political decision was made. It is a matter of public record.

Lets just sigh off on to more of the nonsense and see what happens. Policy they say...

Roulette has better chances..

Dork02

[Maverick]

16 hours ago, conehead said:

Source please?

This is the only one I can find at the moment, I follow this fairly closely. My personal belief is that Rafale' is the best choice. The SH, if we do get it will be the last of the production run and Boeing will have no great interest in continual upgrades. Dassault is hungry for a "blue-chip" customer like Canada and while it's expensive we would control all aspects of its life. 

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-s-french-rival-pitches-canadianized-fighter-jet-1.2577234

[Guest]

Regarding the Super Hornet, the following is from the  "Navy Times"  site: http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/05/08/nothing-scares-hornet-pilots-more-than-losing-oxygen-and-happens-all-time/82255406/

Nothing scares Hornet pilots more than losing oxygen — and it happens all the time

Meghann Myers, Navy Times2:54 p.m. EDT May 11, 2016

 

(Photo: Oliver Cole/Navy)

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Engineers are scrambling to fix systems causing breathing and pressurization problems in Navy and Marine jets.
• The fleet is reporting eight times more of these cases than in 2009.
• F/A-18 Hornet aviators say the dangers are real and the fixes aren't coming fast enough.

 2547CONNECTTWEET 45LINKEDIN 10COMMENTEMAILMORE

Editor's note: This article was published on May 8 at 4:08 p.m. EDT and has been updated.

The third time the high-pitched alarm rang "deedle deedle" in the F/A-18F Super Hornet's cockpit, it was clear that something with the air flowing into their regulators had gone horribly wrong.

"That's when I realize my lips were tingling, my fingers are tingling, and I'm like, 'S---, man, something's wrong,' " a Navy pilot recalled. "And the guy in the back's like, 'Hey, dude! My fingers are blue!' "

They had just taken off from Naval Air Station Fallon, Nev., when they recognized the blurred judgment and delayed reflexes caused by a lack of oxygen. Suddenly the pilot had to figure out how to land the $65 million jet on a cloudy day, in a rocky stretch of Nevada where mountains peak at 6,000 feet.

"So the problem is, how low can you go? And you’re doing this hypoxic," recalled the 1,000-hour West Coast-based Hornet pilot, who asked not to be named out of concern over his 10-year career.

The pilot and naval flight officer were suffering from a lack of oxygen to the body's tissues, a condition known as hypoxia, which causes tingling and numbness leading to confusion and eventually to unconsciousness. Some will lose the capacity to speak, others are disoriented to the point of acting drunk.

Physiological episodes — including hypoxia and decompression sickness from loss of cockpit air flow — which are hard to diagnose after the fact, are  a confirmed cause in at least 15 naval aviation deaths in the past two decades — and aviators are worried more pilots may die before officials fix the problems.

Naval Air Systems Command is scrambling to implement fixes, but the brass has underplayed the severity and frequency of the danger since it emerged in a February congressional hearing, according to interviews with pilots and official reports.

These show a troubling rise in the number of breathing and pressurization problems, and that Navy and Marine F/A-18 Hornet and EA-18G Growler aviators view the problematic On-Board Oxygen Generation System as the fleet's most pressing safety issue 10 times over. Despite these issues, aviation bosses have not grounded the fleet, a common response to aircraft safety issues.

Thinning Air — Hypoxia in the Navy and Marine Corps
Create b

[conehead]

This should not be a difficult issue to resolve.  I do not recall any such incidents with the O2 system when I worked on the CF-18's, but that was a few years ago..

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, conehead said:

This should not be a difficult issue to resolve.  I do not recall any such incidents with the O2 system when I worked on the CF-18's, but that was a few years ago..

indeed should not but still not resolved. So far after 4 months still a problem. National post today. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/u-s-navy-pilots-report-oxygen-shortage-while-flying-super-hornet-fighter-jets-being-considered-by-liberals

 

OTTAWA — The U.S. Navy is struggling with an increase in the number of pilots reporting oxygen problems while flying Super Hornets — the same fighter jet the Liberal government is considering instead of the F-35.

The problem has become so severe that a U.S. Navy spokesman said it is the force’s top safety priority. However, while a special team has been created to fix the issue, Ensign Marc Rockwellpate said finding the “root causes” has “proven to be challenging.”

The revelation, which comes weeks after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the F-35 “does not work,” will only add more fuel to the fire as the Liberals grapple with replacing Canada’s venerable CF-18 fighter jets.

The Liberals promised during last year’s election that they would hold a competition for new jets, but not buy the F-35. Now they say new jets are urgently needed, and while no decision has been made, sources told Postmedia this month that the Liberals were leaning toward buying Super Hornets without a competition.

Related

• Matthew Fisher: Why the Super Hornets will force Canada out of its own north
• Liberals shrug off Lockheed warnings it will take business elsewhere unless F-35s purchased

The severity of the Super Hornet’s problems with oxygen loss and depressurization first came to light in February, when a U.S. congressional subcommittee raised the issue. The U.S. military has since revealed that there have been dozens of so-called “physiological episodes” since 2010 — with the rate increasing in recent years.

The issue has afflicted the U.S. Navy’s Super Hornets and older F-18 Hornets, which are similar to Canada’s CF-18s, at an almost equal rate. While it’s believed the problem on the older planes relates to their advanced age, the issue with the newer Super Hornets is believed to be their onboard oxygen system.

Testifying before the congressional subcommittee in February, Rear-Admiral Michael Manazir said trying to pinpoint the exact the source of the problem in the oxygen system was like “chasing a ghost.”

“We can’t figure out … whether there was a smaller oxygen content than we needed or a carbon monoxide event or poison in the gas (or) something that came off of a bearing so you’re breathing toxic air.”

Symptoms associated with hypoxia, or loss of oxygen to the body’s tissues, come on gradually in pilots. Rather than passing out right away, pilots will often feel dizzy or confused at first, as if they are drunk, before losing consciousness. This has raised fears of pilots not recognizing signs of hypoxia until it’s too late.

While U.S. military officials say they are determined to deal with the issue, they say there has not been any crash or fatality because of so-called “physiological effects” since 2011. The problem is also not considered serious enough to ground the U.S. Navy’s fleet. 

However, a recent article in the Navy Times, which reports on the U.S. Navy, said U.S. military personnel are worried about the growing number of incidents. The article also attributed at least 15 deaths in the past 20 years to oxygen loss and decompression sickness.

A spokeswoman for U.S. aerospace giant Boeing Co., which builds the Super Hornet and has been lobbying the Liberal government to buy the plane, confirmed the oxygen problem this week. Rebecca Yeamans told the Citizen it was a “complex issue,” and that Boeing has been working with the U.S. Navy to address it.

The Super Hornet isn’t the only aircraft to have problems with oxygen loss and decompression. The U.S. military has had similar issues with its F-22 fighter jet, which is built by F-35 maker Lockheed Martin. However, there have not been any reports of problems on the type of F-35 that Canada would buy.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Rich Pulman said:

One thing to consider is that the US Navy always uses 100% O₂ while the CF does not.

but if the O2 supply is contaminated there would still be a problem. Strange though that they are still unable to determine the source of the problem.  The RAAF has Super Hornets and I can not find any similar problems reported by them, so perhaps it is just the Navy version indeed. I believe the US Marines are so far not using the Super Hornet but my information could be dated.

[boestar]

Do our current Hornets use LOX for oxygen supply?  Is there a different system installed on the US's newer versions of the hornet and super hornet?  The aircraft have been in service for decades.  Why is it an issue now?

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, boestar said:

Do our current Hornets use LOX for oxygen supply?  Is there a different system installed on the US's newer versions of the hornet and super hornet?  The aircraft have been in service for decades.  Why is it an issue now?

 

We are talking about the Super Hornet, not the older version and like with all upgrades I would imagine the O2 system was changed.

Evidently the F22 has/had the same problem:

Did the USAF solve the F-22 oxygen supply problem ?

 

 

Steve Miller, 42 yrs Exp, 22 types Military Aircraft, 6,770 flight hrs, Lockheed Flt Test Engr

525 Views •

 

 

U.S. Air Force

Yes, it was resolved several years ago.  Unlike other aircraft that carry a finite LOX (liquid oxygen) supply, the F-22 has an "On Board Oxygen Generating System" (OBOGS).  Previously if OBOGS malfunctioned intermittently, the pilot could not detect if it was imperceptably generating insufficient oxygen, and thereby cause the pilot to develop a slow onset of hypoxia that could lead to blackout before anything could be remedied.  The solution was to issue a retrofit contract to add finite LOX units configured with an oxygen sensor to automatically dispense oxygen if it detects OBOGS is not providing enough.  The retrofit contract was done two years ago and there's been no hypoxia incidents for over two years.

    Steve Miller, Copyright (c) 2015

[conehead]

1 hour ago, boestar said:

Do our current Hornets use LOX for oxygen supply?  Is there a different system installed on the US's newer versions of the hornet and super hornet?  The aircraft have been in service for decades.  Why is it an issue now?

 

Yes, ours use LOX.

[boestar]

Thanks, thats where I was going.  LOX was a reliable system so more modern planes must use a different system.  

[Guest]

The news comes a few days after the Marines announced they were pulling old F/A-18s out of mothballs in the Arizona desert to fill out their squadrons because of delays in getting their F-35s. Boeing has already made a couple of Hornets airworthy and there are plans to bring a total of 30 back to life. Only about 32 percent of its fleet of F/A-18s are airworthy and the Marines need at least 58 percent on the line to maintain operational readiness and do all the training and other flying the fighters have to do. Other F/A-18 users have bridged the gap between the 35-year-old Hornet and the F-35 with the Super Hornet but the Marines elected to gamble on the F-35, which was supposed to be available in 2006.

[Moon The Loon]

6 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Boeing has already made a couple of Hornets airworthy...

"Boeing"? Or one or more of their sub-contractors? BIG difference. Witness HMY/Harmony experience with "Boeing" refurbished 757's

[dagger]

 

Now it's the F-35 ejection seat

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/f-35-ejection-seat-woes-2016-6

 

 

BRIEFING

The F-35 may be about to face even more delays

 

JEREMY BENDER

JUN 28, 2016, 10:25 AM  

Flickr/Lockheed Martin

The oft-troubled F-35 may be on the verge of facing an even greater series of delays that could affect the supply chain of the aircraft and work agreements with jet-partner Great Britain.

At the root of the problem is the still-unresolved issue of the F-35’s ejection seat, which runs the risk of causing fatal whiplash in pilots under 200 pounds.

The issue is most pronounced with lighter-weight pilots, with those weighing under 136 pounds now barred from flying the aircraft for safety concerns related to the F-35’s Martin-Baker ejection seat, Defence News reports.

The problem with the ejection seats has been known since at least October 2015. But so far, fixes from Martin-Baker have focused on small issues without resolving the overall design flaw that could cause the fatal whiplash, according to two anonymous officials who spoke to Defence News.

In light of this, the F-35 program has begun to look at other manufacturers for its ejection seats. Chiefly, the program is looking at the United Technologies ACES 5 model.

“We believe it is prudent to look at what it would take to qualify the ACES 5 seat as a potential risk mitigation step if additional things happen as we go through the testing of the Martin-Baker seat,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch told Defence News. “We believe it’s prudent to determine what it would cost, how much [effect it has on] the schedule, what the timeline would be, if something else happened and we wanted to go a different way.”

Should the F-35 project decide to replace the F-35’s ejection seats, costs of the program could increase and the aircraft could take longer to deliver. Martin-Baker is a British company, and its role in the construction of F-35 jets allows Britain to reap economic benefits from being a part of the F-35 program. Should the project decide to scrap Martin-Baker and use United Technologies, a US company, then the UK could demand a greater work share in other portions of the F-35.

Martin-BakerA test of the F-35 ejection seat.

This would likely drive up costs for the program, as the supply chain and logistics of the project would need to be significantly altered.

The risk of fatal whiplash was previously thought to be caused by a combination of the way in which the ejection seats rolled forwards combined with the weight of the F-35’s helmet.

During simulated low-speed ejections, the heavy forces at play during the acceleration or deceleration of the advanced fighter jet would snap the neck of lightweight dummies. The problem was initially thought to have been caused by the ejection seats rotating too far forward. This movement, combined with the force of ejecting from the aircraft, would snap the dummies’ necks.

However, Reuters reported in October 2015 that the risk from the ejection seats to even lighter pilots was still exceptionally small. Pilots weighing under 136 pounds had a one-in-50,000 chance of hurting their neck, while pilots weighing 146 to 165 pounds had a one-in-200,000 chance.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2016 by dagger

[Guest]

Analysis

Is Canada's 'capability gap' military or political?: Terry Milewski

Defence minister says Canada lacks the ships and planes it needs, but there's no plan to fix the problem

By Terry Milewski, CBC News Posted: Jul 06, 2016 9:07 PM ET Last Updated: Jul 06, 2016 9:07 PM ET

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says Canada's aging fighter jets need to be replaced soon but there's no timeline at present for when and how that's going to happen. (THE CANADIAN PRESS)

 

 

 

First, the Conservatives bemoaned the Liberal "decade of darkness." Then, the Liberals bemoaned the Conservative one.

So they're both really good at moaning about the sad state of Canada's armed forces.

But will anyone actually fix it? A hardy band of defence experts is starting to wonder, and the aging ships and planes aren't getting any younger.

• Sajjan going back to drawing board on fighter jets, launching consultations
• CF-18 airframes approaching their age limits as replacement debate rages

Take the navy's last functioning supply ship, the Protecteur. After 46 years of service ferrying fuel, food and water to the fleet, the old ship was already something of a wreck when the engine room caught fire off Hawaii in February 2014. It was a sorry end to a long career: adrift and alone in the ocean, then towed to port to be chopped up for scrap. 

That left the Royal Canadian Navy with no supply ships at all. To grasp how ignominious that is, consider what it really means: the navy can sail out to sea but can't sail back — not without help from its allies. Any ship running short of fuel needs to beg and borrow from friends and that is what the navy has been doing, routinely, ever since the Protecteur flamed out.

Canada's defence minister, to his credit, makes no bones about this. Instead, at a Wednesday meeting with industry experts, Harjit Sajjan was quite blunt.

"If you do not address the capability gap," he said, "you will actually end up losing a capability. And that's exactly what's happened with our navy right now. Right now, we require Spain and Chile to assist with the re-supplying, because we don't have ships right now to re-supply us."

Naval officers at HMCS Protecteur's paying-off ceremony in Esquimalt, B.C., on May 14, 2015. (Chad Hipolito / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

No disrespect to the fine Spanish and Chilean navies, but it's not an inspiring picture for Canada — a nation with the world's longest coastline. And the gap is not being filled. With three oceans to patrol and supply, Canada is now working on ... just one new supply ship.

OK, it's not really new at all, it's a second-hand freighter, being refitted in a hurry as an "interim" supply ship.

Another two new ones are certainly planned. There's no shortage of plans. But those two ships are to be built by Seaspan in Vancouver under the Conservatives' National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, which continues under the Liberals. Six years after the NSPS was announced — and 2½ years after the Protecteur burned — the building of the two supply ships has not even started. So Canada will be begging and borrowing on the high seas for quite a while.

Oh, but one thing has changed under the Liberals. It's now called the National Shipbuilding Strategy. They've taken the "procurement" out of it. Maybe that will speed things up.

The fighter gap

And jet fighters? Of course, that's the zombie debate: it just won't die. After tormenting the Harper government for years, it's lumbering into view all over again.

Here, too, there's an urgent "capability gap," according to the minister. Out of 138 CF-18 fighters bought in the 1980s, Sajjan says only 77 are still airworthy — and that's not enough.

• Lockheed Martin warns it will pull $825M in F-35 contracts if Canada buys another jet
• MacKay says he regrets Conservatives' failure to buy new fighter planes

"Between our NORAD and NATO commitments, between how many jets are serviceable at one time, we cannot meet those both requirements simultaneously."

If so, that means a solution is urgent, right?

Wrong. Apparently, it's not that urgent at all. Sajjan refused to say when he might have a solution. First, he will listen. He will consult. He's done seven consultation sessions so far, building on the studies done by the Harper government, which produced an experts' report in December of 2014.

Those, in turn, built upon a long list of consultations going back to 2012. 

What about political capability?

But, if the military "capability gap" is real, might there also be a political capability gap to deal with?

The question arises because of a ticklish communications problem facing the government — a conflict between two Liberal campaign promises.

The first was to rule out buying F-35 fighters and to use the savings to invest in the navy. The second was to "immediately" hold an open competition to choose a new fighter.

During the 2015 election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised not to buy F-35s and instead go with a cheaper alternative. (The Associated Press)

The problem is that it has to be one or the other. If you rule out the F-35, your competition is not open. So the question to be answered is not just which planes to buy, but which promise to break.

And while the government ponders all this, defence industry lobbyists are tearing their hair out. Years go by, and payday never comes.

As one said this week through gritted teeth, "This government needs to grow a pair and make a decision."

[boestar]

Build the requirements list for the new aircraft.  Test multiple aircraft against the requirements list.  pick the aircraft that meets the requirements.  If one of our requirements is a twin engine fighter then the F-35 immediately does not make the cut.  Pretty simple in my book.

 

[Maverick]

The elephant in the room is the fact that Canada has wildly different requirements for this/these aircraft. 

We need an aircraft that can patrol the north and also do Air-to-ground missions.

It needs two engines for long range patrols, anyone in our industry knows this.

What should happen is a split order. In my view it's the Eurofighter or Rafale' for long range patol and the Saab Gripen for Lower latitude air defence and air to ground.

The Super Hornet is a program on life support. 

The F-35 doesn't really do anything well and does not have drogue refueling capability.

It's a mess but there are I believe Tranche 1 Eurofighters available and the French could provide new Rafale's within 2 years.

The Gripen E/F NG is in flight test...

Big decision.

 

[boestar]

Agreed there are far better aircraft than the F-35.  The F-35 was far too ambitious and far too automated.  All that leads to is low reliability.  It shows by the fact they cannot even deliver an aircraft that can meet the production specs.

 

[Guest]

Interesting article on Russian Aircraft vs the F35 but it contains another reason why we should not purchase the F-35 and that is that it is designed to fly and be supported by the F-22 raptor, an aircraft we will never have.

Swords and Shields: F-35 beats Russians disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only by Ariel Cohen Washington (UPI) Jan 14, 2009 Russia lags behind the United States in aerospace research and development. It has yet to produce decent competitors to America's two new, fifth-generation fighter jets, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor. The main Russian rivals to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightnings are the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35 (NATO designation Fulcrum F) and the Sukhoi Su-35 (NATO designation Flanker). The Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35 is an upgrade of the MiG-29M/M2 and the MiG-29OVT. Both are fourth-generation jets. The Russian government has been eagerly selling the Sukhoi fighter jets to its friends, so these aircraft are likely to be found in areas where the potential for conflict is greatest, while financing development of the fifth-generation fighter from these export revenues. Russian analysts like to note that the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning JSF, with a maximum speed of only 1,200 mph, is slower than both the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker -- maximum speed 1,680 mph -- and the MiG-35 Fulcrum -- maximum speed 1,587 mph. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning's range of 1,320 miles is below the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker's range of 2,260 miles as well. While these measures make the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter seem inferior, they are actually fully consistent with its projected mission: F-35s are designed to operate in tandem with Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptors, which would clear the way for F-35s in real combat. Moreover, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning JSF's reported service ceiling of around 57,000 feet is superior to the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35 Fulcrum's 56,000 feet and the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker's 55,000 feet. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning JSF also claims a significant advantage in maneuverability because of its smaller size, advanced materials and lightweight construction. On the record, Russian defense officials insist their Sukhoi and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG fighters can stand up to their American rivals. But a Russian Defense Ministry expert, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Pravda.ru that Russia "patches" its fourth-generation modifications to extend their lifespan, while most of its fifth-generation fighter program has largely remained on paper. In fact, statistics are only the broadest indicators of an aircraft's performance. Combat performance analysis includes maneuverability, stealth, tactics, training, avionics, situation awareness, weapons, countermeasures, interoperability and supportability as major factors. Stealth is a major discriminator between a 5G fighter like the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and "Gen 4 plus plus" competitors like the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35 Fulcrum and the Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker that are essentially modernizations of their respective progenitors, the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 and the Sukhoi Su-27. No operational Soviet or Russian stealth aircraft has ever been reported to have entered service. A U.S. analyst who requested anonymity said that while the Russians have some good specific system technologies, their ability to effectively integrate them often lags behind that of the West, and the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter takes integration of off-board intelligence to a step well beyond proven Russian capabilities. "From the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union until crude oil prices recently rose to $100 per barrel, the ability of Russian aircraft designers to transition their advanced scientific knowledge through RDT&E (research, development, test and evaluation) into production-ready systems has been restricted, with funding available almost solely from sales of its legacy 4th Gen MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters to other countries," the analyst said. With oil prices collapsing, the challenges of serial production of advanced aerospace weapons systems remains, while the Russian highly skilled military space and aviation industry labor force is pushing 60 -- beyond the life expectancy of an average Russian male. Sukhoi Su-30 fighters bought by China and India were more advanced than those in Russian air force service, which were procured only in small quantities. Progress in completing the production development of the PAK-FA T-50, Russia's first 5G fighter design, remains dependent on Indian funding. While notable improvements have been made in the reliability and supportability of Russian aircraft systems, they still fall far short of Western standards. This is particularly true of aircraft engines. Russia has a long way to go to catch up with the United States in the prestigious new generation fighter competition. Only domestic politics, such as in Europe; declining economic fortunes of potential partners; and high production costs of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter may slow down its triumphant march. (Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is a senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian studies and international energy security at the Catherine and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute at The Heritage Foundation).