backtop


Print 71 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Apr 10 at 9:42 PM

Critics say this is a move to get the conservative party through the coming elections

Canada is one of the partners in the Lockheed F-35 program and has previously lashed out at rising costs and continuing delays. More recently, Canada has hit the F-35 program with another blow that could hurt the program.
 
The country announced that it wouldn’t be in a position to purchase the F-35 until 2018. According to some industry observers, this is nothing more than a political ploy aimed at swaying voter opinion in upcoming elections.

 
“This whole thing is designed to delay and to get the Conservatives past the next election so they don’t have to come clean with Canadians about their F-35 plans,” said Liberal Party defense critic Joyce Murray.

Jack Harris, defense critic with the official opposition New Democratic Party, echoed those sentiments, stating, “They portray themselves as strong fiscal managers, but they have bungled numerous defense procurement files, particularly the F-35. They don’t want this mess hanging over their heads during an election campaign.”
 
Both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party support an open competition for a new jet fighter.
 
Defense News reports that the Canadian government gave no official reason for delaying the purchase.

Source: Defense News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Cold-Weather Issues
By Flunk on 4/7/2014 11:07:55 AM , Rating: 2
I would think they would have at least blamed this on the cold-weather issues the F-35 is still having. Moving the procurement until after the next election is the sort of cheap political stunt I expect from Stephen Harper.




RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By embedded_bill on 4/7/2014 11:20:36 AM , Rating: 2
Delaying only puts the program into the news, which raises the political conversation. I doubt this was a move in order better election chances. The program was born in a time when air force roles were transforming the tactical strike role against militia organizations and strategic air defense is downplayed. I don't think the F35 is much of a strategic air defense fighter, and Russia isn't the passive nation we recently hoped it was becoming.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By Flunk on 4/7/2014 11:29:27 AM , Rating: 2
Canada evaluated the Eurofighter Typhoon and Gripen. Of the available options and is contractually obligated to buy them now, especially having paid to finance development. Buying something else now is not a realistic option.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By embedded_bill on 4/7/2014 11:38:42 AM , Rating: 2
True they paid to finance the development, but it is still a sunk cost. It is the value of the investment going forward that matters people are too attached to money already spent. It is gone. For a 30/40/50 year purchase, Canada is better to delay and possible cancel rather than make the wrong purchase.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2014 11:43:40 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed.

It's not like they need to make a decision post haste. Hell they don't even need an air force, truth be told.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By embedded_bill on 4/7/2014 11:48:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hell they don't even need an air force, truth be told.

Is that divergent thinking I hear? Is that allowed on this forum?


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By Makaveli on 4/7/2014 12:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
He is right were are just north of the United states and all on the same land mass. We just have to make a phone call for air support.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By embedded_bill on 4/7/2014 12:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
That is certainly an option, maybe even the best one.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2014 3:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
And then the Canadians and liberals here in the US will still complain about how much we spend on our defense when they rely on that military to defend them.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By mi1400 on 4/8/2014 5:25:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well canadians have just leaked that new Block/Variant of F35 is in the works :P


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2014 12:05:44 PM , Rating: 3
Oh and if anyone thought I mean this as a slight to Canada, let me be plain that I don't think we (USA) need the F-35 either.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By michael67 on 4/7/2014 2:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Damn it the first time in a long time i actually agree with you, the sky must be falling!!! O_0

To have STOVL (short take-off and vertical landing aircraft) capability's and to be stealth the wings have to be short.

To be able to dogfight you need big wings, but the F-35 dose not need to dogfight because it got stealth, right?

Wrong Russia an China bot make long wave radar now, and stealth dose not work real well on long wave radar.

They made F-35 and it has to be able to do all kind of roles, great in theory, but in practice they ended up with a plane that can do all that but is not good on any of it.

Even the F-22 that is a much better fighter plane was still beaten by German Tornado's 4 to 1.

To quote the lead designer of the F-16, reconized all over the world as one of the best fighters of all time, and that can be named in the same bread as the Spitfighter, P51, 109, Zero, Mig 17 and the F4.

He basically called the F-35 a Lemon!

CBC: The Fifth Estate - Runaway Fighter
TPB site: http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7718905/The.Fifth.E...
quote:
It could yet prove to be the most expensive defense purchase in Canadian history -- $25 billion and counting. The military promises it's the best fighter jet available, but some critics are saying it's a turkey hatched from a bad idea: a do-it-all plane that might not do anything well-at-all.


And when people ask hard questions, if the fight can do what the PR makes us believe it can do, in what every country, politicians begin to be very evasive.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By sorry dog on 4/7/2014 2:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even the F-22 that is a much better fighter plane was still beaten by German Tornado's 4 to 1.To quote the lead designer of the F-16, reconized all over the world as one of the best fighters of all time, and that can be named in the same bread as the Spitfighter, P51, 109, Zero, Mig 17 and the F4.He basically called the F-35 a Lemon!


If your going to make big claims like these, then you better post supporting references. Right now I see your statements as BS.

Who is this lead designer that says it's lemon? Have a name?


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2014 3:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By sorry dog on 4/8/2014 10:09:57 AM , Rating: 2
That's what I thought.

Sprey was NOT the lead designer of the F16. I don't even think he ever worked at General Dynamics.

One of the first things the guy says spouts off about is how small the wings are, yet the wing loading is very close to the F16 for the A model. The C model will have lower loading. Basically, this guy may have had an important job once, but appears to be grasping at relevance


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By michael67 on 4/8/2014 11:37:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of the first things the guy says spouts off about is how small the wings are, yet the wing loading is very close to the F16 for the A model.

F16
Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,570 kg)
Loaded weight: 26,500 lb (12,000 kg)
Thrust/weight: 1.095

F35
Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)
Loaded weight: 49,540 lb (22,470 kg)
Thrust/weight: 0.87

Lighter plane, the less wing is needed.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By michael67 on 4/8/2014 12:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
ps: That's 7 extra Toyota Camry's that have to make a tight corner, so yeah i think the F35 could use some extra wing.

Or better scrap the hole program and update the F22, and make that the new JSF.

As the F35 is not a real bomber, not a real fighter, and certainly not a ground support plane.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By Jeffk464 on 4/8/2014 6:36:09 PM , Rating: 2
The last do everything "fighter" was the F4, not a great plane by any stretch of the imagination. All though it did look cool.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By sorry dog on 4/8/2014 3:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
Planes don't fly empty... they glide.

Try again with real numbers.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By sorry dog on 4/8/2014 3:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me... looked at your bold numbers and realized that doesn't compute. However, take 50% internal fuel for F35 (doesn't need tanks).

Now, take 75% fuel for F16 (it does need tanks)... the numbers are close. Also, that is for sustained turn only, not instantaneous turn. Depending on speed, both having computer driven G limits at 9 G.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2014 3:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
This is what happens when politicians, not designers and people in the field, make decisions.

They asked Lockheed Martin for a sh*t sandwich, even if they didn't know that's what they were asking for, and that's what we got.

quote:
Even the F-22 that is a much better fighter plane was still beaten by German Tornado's 4 to 1.


Meh, in some (probably biased) sterile pre-planned exercise. The F-15 got shot down in battle exercises too. But not a single one has been lost in actual combat.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By michael67 on 4/7/2014 3:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By ChronoReverse on 4/7/2014 4:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hence, at least in a (possibly unrealistic) WVR (Within Visual Range) air-to-air engagement with the Typhoon, the Raptor is not invincible. However, as already explained several times, simulated kills scored during dissimilar BFM engagements don’t prove a fighter plane is better than another one, and are almost meaningless unless the actual Rules Of Engagement (ROE) and the training scenario are known.


From previous incidents where the F-22 was placed in increasingly unrealistic and unfair conditions before regular planes finally had a chance against it, it seems unlikely this F-22 wasn't in a contrived scenario in the first place. The French are happy to have the kill mark (for training exercises ROFL) but won't ever reveal how it occurred to avoid being laugh out.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By michael67 on 4/7/2014 5:45:48 PM , Rating: 3
Actually i dont care how the F-22 is doing, as there are without hard Nr's no real insight
http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fia12-typhoon...

if i have to pick between buying 40 f-35 and buying 200+ F-16 planes, i would get 200+ F-16s.

And keep the A-10s for ground support, as the F-35 is not suited for it at all.

Anyone who says otherwise should ask Germany during WW-II, how the 85.000 cheap build T-34 did against Panzer III, IV, V and Tiger tanks.

Yeah high-tech can make you win wars, and lose less people, but at a certain point, more tech gives you diminishing returns, and are the numbers of planes gone count more.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2014 8:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if i have to pick between buying 40 f-35 and buying 200+ F-16 planes, i would get 200+ F-16s.


On that we agree 100%.

quote:
Anyone who says otherwise should ask Germany during WW-II, how the 85.000 cheap build T-34 did against Panzer III, IV, V and Tiger tanks.


Or the Bismark. I've read that the German Naval commanders were screaming for more U-Boats. They knew they could build and crew about 400 U-Boats for what the Bismark cost to build. And they would have had such a greater impact on the war, I dare to think what would have happened to world history had Hitler not been such a colossal idiot.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By sorry dog on 4/8/2014 2:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
The cost ratio is not going to be 5 to 1. The CBO estimates the unit cost will be, once full production rates are in effect, around $85 million in 2013 dollars. Now F16's are not $40 million; block 60 is more like 70 million...if you order more than a few. If that's your budget then your best option is probably the KAI FA50, or some refurbished F teen series or euro canard planes. A better comparison would the Mitsubishi F2 which is $127 a unit, but let's split the difference and say $95 mil.... And let's say the A model go over budget again (let's guess maybe 40% - nice round number) and is really $120 mil. So now your ratio is 5 F-16's to 4 F35's...but let's take it further two notches and just say 3 F16's to 2 F35's.

Now argument gets interesting (and I'll take your side for minute). Air to air fighting makes for sexy reporting and movies, but it just doesn't happen all that often. 99% of flight hours will be spent trucking around bombs, bullets, and cameras. If you have air supremacy, the air defense is cavemen with MANPADS or truck mounted Bofors, and their air force is modern only by WWI standards, then yes I'd rather have 50% more planes in the air to do more missions, even if my pilot costs are 50% more and my maintenance costs are 30% more. It makes sense for the low tech enemy.

However, the reverse is true for the high tech enemy.

I may have 50% more planes, but I'm going to lose a lot more planes. Also, when pilots are captured or killed it doesn't matter what kind of plane they fly, except the Air will in fact probably be taking flak for canceling and not having the most high tech plane. The most pessimistic air to air exchange ratios are at least 2:1 and will get worse as the air force get outnumbered. At least on offensive missions the force will withdraw before that happens. The survivability against SAMs doesn't look too promising either.

There is really of only one scenario where odds are more even and that is a 1v1 or 2v2 within visual range and that is going to be a minority of engagements. Even in that regime, any small kinetic deficits can be overcome by reduced reaction time from increased situational awareness.

To me the choice against an advanced opponent is obvious... or you can plan for a softer opponent and try to save some money... but I don't see much savings from getting more pilots and planes shot down. And if you don't have that competitive advantages, it's a lot more likely that somebody is going to test you capability.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By Jeffk464 on 4/8/2014 6:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
it's a lot more likely that somebody is going to test you capability. -


Not really, we would never seriously consider going to war with Russia over Ukraine and vise versa because of the Nuclear. The same holds true between the US and China, Pakistan and India, Russia and China, hell even North Korea is off limits. Sure we have a conventional fighting advantage over Russia but its just not worth the risk. You could also bet that if Ukraine still had nukes Putin would not have moved in.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By inperfectdarkness on 4/8/2014 12:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't be 200. Block 60's cost ~80 million each. If it's a choice of 40 F-35's, your alternative--at best--would be about 100 F-16's. And 80 million is a LOW estimate.

I'm not saying the F-35 is "worth it" necessarily, but let's not confuse facts. F-16 ADF (unadjusted for inflation) MSRP upon original debut has no bearing whatsoever on the costs of the F-35. And without block 60 upgrades (AESA, etc) you can't even come close to the features/performance of the F-35 (so don't suggest we use block 50 or older).


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By US56 on 4/7/2014 5:14:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
To quote the lead designer of the F-16, reconized all over the world as one of the best fighters of all time, and that can be named in the same bread as the Spitfighter, P51, 109, Zero, Mig 17 and the F4.

Who could forget the great Spitfighter? Those were awesome. Simply unbeatable when equipped with the improved 30mm mass expectorator firing directly through the propeller hub.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By niaaa on 4/8/2014 7:27:37 AM , Rating: 2
spitfighter :) :) :)

You don't actually know anything about airplanes don't you?


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By michael67 on 4/8/2014 9:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah yeah, Spitfire, but actually i should have put the Hawker Hurricane instead of the Spitfire.

As the cheap Hurricane (50% of the cost of a Spitfire) was the T-34 of the RAF, and even do it did not outperformed the Spitfire 1 on 1, it did so by bigger numbers of Hurricane planes build before the Battle of Britain.

With 60% of the German planes shoot down by Hurricanes.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By Jeffk464 on 4/8/2014 6:51:18 PM , Rating: 2
The english used the spitfires to engage german fighters while the hurricanes went after german bombers. Basically you could use the same concept with F22's and F16's or eurofighters or whatever. You use the F22 to wipe out air defense and then send in the other planes for ground attack roles which is all the f16 has ever been used for anyways.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By Samus on 4/7/2014 11:07:55 PM , Rating: 3
Canada has conservatives?

Huh, I guess I learn something every day.


RE: Cold-Weather Issues
By Jeffk464 on 4/8/2014 6:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
Canada should just give the US the bill next time the US drags them into another war. That should pay for there planes nicely.


Unlikely reason
By wordsworm on 4/7/2014 1:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
Harper knows his defeat to Trudeau is around the corner. It will be a huge landslide and there's nothing he can do to stop it, which is why he has largely given up on politics. He's little more than a headless chicken flopping around right now.

As to jets: Maybe Justin can undo Pierre's agreement with the states and enable our own engineers to develop our own aircraft. Avro Aero II maybe?




RE: Unlikely reason
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/14, Rating: 0
RE: Unlikely reason
By michael67 on 4/7/2014 3:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
I even prefer communism (that i think is a very flawed system) over Harper's corrupt capitalism.

How Harper kills of the inconvenienced truth, by closing all the labs that just wane put independent information in the hands of people and government to make fact based decisions.

Silence of the Labs:
CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/episodes/2013-2014/the-sil...
Torrent: http://forums.mvgroup.org/tracker/get.php?id=cYE1G...


RE: Unlikely reason
By embedded_bill on 4/7/2014 3:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
Do you live in Canada? Looks like you may get your wish.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/fuss-over-justi...


RE: Unlikely reason
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/14, Rating: 0
RE: Unlikely reason
By atechfan on 4/7/2014 7:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
Trudeau only got the Liberal Party leadership because of who his father was. He says something equally as stupid as that almost weekly. He'll be our Obama if he's elected. And just like Obama, where he stands politically in his speeches depends on his audience. When he was speaking to separatists in Quebec, he was a separatist, yet when he is speaking to English Canada he's a federalist. I guess he's too stupid to realise that many in the rest of Canada can understand French too and know what he said when he was in Quebec.


RE: Unlikely reason
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/14, Rating: 0
RE: Unlikely reason
By michael67 on 4/7/2014 4:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The CBC piece was especially sensationalist and manipulative. I feel as if I've been beaten over the head just reading it.

How can you even say that, did you watch it on 2x speed maybe?

As it is a 45min news item and you watched it in under 22min.


RE: Unlikely reason
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2014 4:13:00 PM , Rating: 1
Of course I didn't watch the whole video, I'm at work. But I read the whole article.

I mean come on, are you telling me that thing is unbiased?

Look maybe I'm not the best person to discuss this with. I don't believe climate change has been sufficiently vetted as a scientific theory, and I'm not apposed to Harper cutting some of their funding. At the very least, I'm not seeing it as a home horrible travesty.

As far as I can tell, Canadians have a problem with Harper because he's not a flaming Communist like they would prefer up there.


RE: Unlikely reason
By ChronoReverse on 4/7/2014 4:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as I can tell, Canadians have a problem with Harper because he's not a flaming Communist like they would prefer up there.


I'm Canadian and I somewhat empathize with this sentiment. Harper has definitely made missteps but Canadians are often rather unrealistic about what they want.


RE: Unlikely reason
By atechfan on 4/7/2014 7:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
Expecting fair coverage for Harper from the CBC is like having expected fair coverage for Bush from MSNBC.


By Spookster on 4/7/2014 1:31:54 PM , Rating: 3
Are there any more Mayor Rob Ford videos out yet? Those are hilarious. Who knew Canadians could be funny.




Typical
By Ammohunt on 4/7/2014 1:47:05 PM , Rating: 1
When you have the most powerful military in the world at your southern border you can make defense decisions such as these.




Reconsidering Canada's Role
By embedded_bill on 4/7/14, Rating: -1
RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By ChronoReverse on 4/7/2014 11:17:27 AM , Rating: 3
We can't buy the F-22. I wish people wouldn't bring it up as an option because it ISN'T ONE.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By embedded_bill on 4/7/2014 11:23:52 AM , Rating: 1
So you must have some inside information?


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By Flunk on 4/7/2014 11:26:21 AM , Rating: 4
No, it's very public information. The US does not allow the F22 to be sold to anyone, at all.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By embedded_bill on 4/7/14, Rating: -1
RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By Flunk on 4/7/2014 11:41:54 AM , Rating: 1
It's illegal as per amendment H.AMDT.295 to bill H.R.2266. Learn to use Google.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HZ002...


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By embedded_bill on 4/7/2014 11:46:39 AM , Rating: 1
I am aware of the export ban, I am also aware of the rumors about lifting the ban going on for years. Bill Clinton supported the sale of the F22 to Israel, in order to complete that sale the ban would have been lifed or an exception created.

When politics and economics are involved, your reference document is not the be all and end all.

quote:
Learn to use Google.


I will write that one down.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By Flunk on 4/7/2014 11:49:00 AM , Rating: 2
Too late now anyway, F22 is discontinued. Being stubborn doesn't make you any more right. You can keep repeating the same stupid thing over and over and it doesn't make you any more right.

The decision was made years ago, F22 was never an option due to export restrictions and is now discontinued. I've never seem anyone argue a point so hard for no reason.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By Makaveli on 4/7/2014 11:59:48 AM , Rating: 3
Im canadian and even I know the americans haven't allowed anyone to buy the Raptor. That has been common knowledge for years now.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By embedded_bill on 4/7/14, Rating: 0
RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By SunLord on 4/7/2014 12:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
Restarting production isn't the issue since they did keep most of the tooling it's the the major increase in cost to restart production it would cost $227 Million per aircraft vs the $153 million it originally cost to build the current 187. Now if we were able to get the US along with Israel and Canada to buy 200-300 More costs would again go down but that's unlikely in the extreme


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By embedded_bill on 4/7/2014 1:05:46 PM , Rating: 2
Per unit costs are very high, but even at double the per unit costs of the F35, which option would provide better strategic air value in north america? 80 F35s or 40 F22s? The example numbers are purely for comparison as who knows what the final numbers would actually be. Compared to the purchase of the F35 considering the role that Canada may want to play in the future, it may be worth it.

Reclaimer mentioned in another part of this discussion the option of not buying anything which may be even better.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By michael67 on 4/8/2014 2:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
which option would provide better strategic air value in north america? 80 F35s or 40 F22s?

200+ F-16s and 200+ A-10s, no war is solely won in the air, and there is no fighter that can beat the A-10 and AC-130 gunship for ground support.

But it just could be me, as i am not military, so what would i know, because i am a real strong believer in the KISS principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle?

And the F-35 is anything but following the KISS rule.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By OS on 4/7/2014 11:42:59 AM , Rating: 3
The F22 isn't even in production any more.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By drycrust3 on 4/7/2014 1:18:59 PM , Rating: 1
I think, considering you're looking for a substitute for the F35, I would have gone with one of the new F15 variants. The plane is operational and it works ... although I'm not sure about whether it is suited to the Canadian climate.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By mellomonk on 4/7/2014 2:40:36 PM , Rating: 3
The F-15 has been operating in Alaska and over the arctic for decades. The whole cold weather argument boggles my mind. Details yet to be worked out for ground handling, systems, and maintenance. One check on a punch list. A high performance fighter encounters extreme cold nearly every time it flies.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By drycrust3 on 4/8/2014 1:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the Heads Up.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By sorry dog on 4/7/2014 2:49:29 PM , Rating: 1
Considering Canada's expansive borders...

I would think the F35 would be a very good choice for having very long legs. It's combat radius without stores is over 600nm which is very good. I haven't seen an official ferry number yet, but it's probably at least 2500nm.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2014 3:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
In case...what? Some seals breach their perimeter?

Oh and not Navy Seals, I mean the big blubbery hairy kind of seals.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By sorry dog on 4/8/2014 3:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
Just because it's in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean planes don't fly over it. In fact, many of the polar routes tend to be the most efficient trans-continental routes. So what do propose Canada say when a rouge 777 600 miles north of Hudson Bay can't be intercepted much less escorted because their Gripens only have a 500 mile radius or only paid for southern bases since we don't worry about seal invasions.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By justjc on 4/8/2014 6:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
@Sorry dog: The proposed version for Canada is the new Gripen JAS 39E which has a combat radius of around 800 miles and sustained supercruise while carrying a air to air combat payload.

So not only will the new generation Gripen be able to go further than the F-35 it will also get to the enemy faster.

The Gripen is also a lot cheaper, both when buying and in lifetime costs, around half the cost of a F-35. This is mostly because the Gripen is based on proven technology, such as the engines that is an improved version of the General Electric F414 found in the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Another neat feature of the Gripen, that I doubt the F-35 can follow is the ability to land on roads and leave within an hour with new fuel and armament.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By Jeffk464 on 4/8/2014 6:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
VTOL the marine version should be capable of this. The trick though is to always figure a way to get an airfield located close to the conflict.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By justjc on 4/9/2014 2:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
The STOVL version of the F-35, the B variant, might do the same trick as the Gripen.

However with that ability the combat radius is reduced by 20 %, compared to the CTOL versions, and the price goes up nearly 50 %.

That means you can buy and run 3 Gripen for the cost of one F-35B. All with greater range and speed. The only things the F-35 has going for it is stealth, which is offset by an easy to spot thermal signature, and that buying the F-35 will improve relations with America.


RE: Reconsidering Canada's Role
By sorry dog on 4/10/2014 9:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
The only way the Gripen is going to get 800 miles radius is going to be in a ferry configuration by hauling 8500 pounds of fuel, tank/pylon, and 2 sidewinders and if it's hot 9,000 feet of smooth runway will be nice too. It will also have the radar return of barn door and a rather high drag index. An F16 in that config has a max speed around 1.3 mach and that's with a few thousand pounds of extra push from an F110, so the Gripen is probably m1.1 or m1.2. The F35 radius includes something useful like a couple of bombs. (Don't forget to subtract a pylon or two and add some more drag for jammer and sniper pods on the Gripen). I also wonder if the Gripen numbers are for optimal conditions or the 5% performance penalty to estimate numbers for an engine towards the end of its service interval the F35 uses...


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki