Canada Selects Lockheed Martin F-35 For Next-Generation Fighter

[frankwi]

Canada Selects Lockheed Martin F-35 For Next-Generation Fighter

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/100716ae_canada-chooses-f35.html

 

[Allen]

Not so fast....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/business/global/16fighter.html?_r=2&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

 

[CG_1976]

And here is the major concern for us in the Arctic.

"Unlike the twin-engine CF-18, the F-35 has only one engine. Its failure could leave pilots exposed to the harsh Arctic environment as they await rescue." It also makes sense for 2 engines versus one. You loose one you shut it down and use the other to safe flight to safety. Until I see conclusive evidence of her ability to work under harsh Arctic WX and Conditions, I assume this F-35 to be a waste of Canadian Tax Dollars.

 

[Railrunner130]

I'd be interested in seeing statistics related to the twin vs. single engine philosophy. While it makes sense, I wonder if the benefits outweigh the costs.

I think the smarter move in this sagging world economy would be to select a generation 4.5 airplane instead. Generation 5 aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35 seem to be very cost prohibitive. The latest F-16s, Gripens or F-15 Silent Eagle have the same avionics as the generation 5, but on proven airframes that are available today.

 

[RL_201]

I have no idea what Peter MacKay was thinking of. First of all, it was a no bid contract, so Boeing might challenge this contract. And echoing what CG_1976 said, I would not want to be flying a patrol mission up in the Arctic to have your one and only engine fail, which, ironically, is why Canada chose the F-18 over the F-16 when they replaced the Voodoo as the front line fighter/interceptor. Hopefully, MacKay will wake up, and purchase the F-18/E Super Hornet instead, and of course, some new jets for the Snowbirds.

 

[cheezyflier]

well, considering that they spent a billion on security for the G-20 summit here in toronto, and still managed to have huge riots and a police inquiry, not to mention millions of civilian dollars in lost revenue with no offers of aid, $4 billion for 65 of the coolest fighter jets available sounds like quite the bargain.

 

[gigabyte]

I am in no way an expert on Fighters but I have a hard time with this one, just like the other comments pointed out two engines would be better for a big part of our Canadian requirements. I think two engines vs. a single it is only common sense, for Artic Patrol two engines should be a prime requirement - OK I know since when has common sense been part of any political decision and there must be lots of politics involved in this one!

I can't help but wonder if this is nothing more than a Red Herring like the announcement of 3 new supply ships a couple years ago, only to see it cancelled a short time later and finally revived this week a much different program for only 2 vessels?

I am not going to get into any Political debate, just wondering how or where the politics are going to be reveled in this decision.

 

[Ken Stallings]

That is the first I have heard that the Canadian government requires a foreign sourced vendor to acquire about $2 of parts and support for each dollar the Canadian government pays them. To be honest, I actually think that's a smart idea. I wish our government would do that frankly!

This being the case, it makes really good sense to proceed with this acquisition. The jets won't show on the ramp until 2016 and by then the need for the jets could become acute.

The price works out at around $67 million per jet, and that's not out of line with the costs of other available fighters of significantly less capability.

I understand the concerns Canadian pilots have about two engines. However, jet engines today are vastly more reliable than at any time in history. Further, in a fighter jet the promises of true redundancy are reduced by the required close proximity of the two engines. If one rips itself apart, it frequently FOD's out the other one.

Ken

 

[Bone]

If one rips itself apart, it frequently FOD's out the other one.

Ken

That would be an extreme catastrophic failure, which could easily happen, but it's a low probability. The majority of engine failures are due to fuel control unit issues, and FADEC problems. Anyway, the hip thing these days is kevlar shielding for the catastrophic failure event.

 

[Naismith]

Personally? I think it is a hideously ugly aircraft. I demand pretty airplanes for my tax dollar!

 

[CG_1976]

Personally? I think it is a hideously ugly aircraft. I demand pretty airplanes for my tax dollar!

Now thats the best comment Ive heard all day lol. You should have seen this mornings FOL Briefing and the Pilots session after Briefing about the F-35.

 

[Naismith]

In all seriousness, I do have to wonder, surely replacing our existing Hornets with the Superhornet would have been the most practical course. At least they are tried and tested airframes. Someone above brought up the aspect of twin engines and our climate which was one of the reasons Hornets were bought originally.
Was our airforce consulted or is this just a political decision? I hope we haven't made a huge mistake here.

 

[gigabyte]

In all seriousness, I do have to wonder, surely replacing our existing Hornets with the Superhornet would have been the most practical course.

I agree completely, but lets face it "Practical & Government" are two words that can't be used in the same sentence...

Was our airforce consulted or is this just a political decision?

I would hope the Air Wing of the Canadian Armed Forces would have had major input into this type of decision, however the record of our current government along these lines makes me think otherwise. My biggest concern with this announcement is the "Single Source Procurment" that process completely eleminates all compition and makes people - read tax payers like me, very suspecious.

 

[cheezyflier]

tax payers like me, very suspecious.

if you're in ontario, you missed the best chance to be suspicious, when they introduced the bag tax and the hst.

 

[Railrunner130]

Does Canada have a technology or industial stake in the F-35? If so, that may be one of the reasons they decided to go that way.

 

[hubbabubba]

Does Canada have a technology or industial stake in the F-35? If so, that may be one of the reasons they decided to go that way.

Yes. Go see HERE for more details.

My main concern is; how 65 aircraft slower and with less range than our actual 100+CF-18 intend to do the job? I'm not a big-headed strategist but, logistically, they can't.

When the Minister of Defense of the time, M. Lamontagne, got out of a two-seat F-18 to announced that the CF-18 was to be our next workhorse, he said (in French) "It's like making love to a women." I think, this time, that we are the ones getting sced!

P.S.- After further verifications, combat radius reported vary from 590 to 610 nmi, which would double its range over the CF-18. But my comments still stand; you can't be in two places at the same time.

 

[gigabyte]

if you're in ontario, you missed the best chance to be suspicious, when they introduced the bag tax and the hst.

Cheezy in all fairness (fairness in politics - now there is an oxymoron) we can't compare the provincial with the federal decisions, HST and the bag tax in Ontario is a provincial matter, the Federal Government is a different "thing" altogether - not that one is better or worse than the other...???
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
Regarding the Technological / Industrial stake in the program, that must have been a big part of justifying the single source procurement, and there are definite advantages that go with Canada's investment and participation in the program, not the least of which is Lockheed Martin investing heavily in Canada - they have two significant sites in NS already and I believe expansion is in the works now.<o></o>

I am not Pro or Con on the F35, or Lockheed Martin, I am not qualified in any way to evaluate the suitability of the aircraft for our needs, I have questions regarding single vs. twin power plants, but Ken did make a good point about the reliability of current technology. My biggest concern with this whole announcement is the Single Source Procurement, these contracts are not fair to other industry players and I find that part hard to swallow. Our current Federal Government does not have a good reputation when it comes to being open with the press, or the public, so no matter what the rational is for this decision we are likely not going to be told by the politico's.<o></o>

I do know this much tho, the military will and does make the very best use of whatever equipment they have to work with, those folks are amazing. I have a good friend who is a Capt. in the Navy, his trade is Clearance Diving, much of the gear his teams use is older than he is - there are divers going deep wearing gear that is twice their age, and we still operate a fleet of Seakings that are at or near 40 years old - they are at the point where they require something like 4 hours maintenance for each flight hour - now that is scary to me.<o></o>

 

[Bjoern]

So Canada...do you like our Leopard 2s? Yeah? I've heard that the Eurofighter is just as good...

 

[cheezyflier]

Cheezy in all fairness (fairness in politics - now there is an oxymoron) we can't compare the provincial with the federal decisions, HST and the bag tax in Ontario is a provincial matter, the Federal Government is a different "thing" altogether

point taken, i concede

 

[gigabyte]

So Canada...do you like our Leopard 2s? Yeah? I've heard that the Eurofighter is just as good...

Bjoern, I have to say the Leopard does pass the "Pretty" Test for Gig, I might even call it a "Sexy Kitty"