• Canada may not buy F-35 afterall
    50 replies, posted
[QUOTE] [IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_A7k1i7GnU9o/TL5UDQ-ov9I/AAAAAAAAACo/suwOBaZBqeo/s1600/CF-35.jpg[/IMG] [B]OTTAWA - The agency overseeing the replacement of the country's CF-18s intends to talk to the U.S., Australia and Britain as it conducts a full-fledged options analysis into the future of Canada's fast fighter fleet, say defence sources.[/B] [B]That review, which will also include consultation with competitors to the oft-maligned F-35 stealth fighter, will get underway soon and could last several months.[/B] In the House of Commons this week, Public Works Minister Rona Ambrose said that the air force's statement of requirements — the document that set out what the military says it needs for selected pieces of equipment — will be set aside until an options analysis is completed. [B]"The options' analysis is a full evaluation of choices, not simply a refresh of the work that was done before," Ambrose told the House of Commons. "That review of options will not be constrained by the previous statement of requirements."[/B] The process usually happens in reverse. The military defines what it needs and then, in conjunction with public works, conducts an analysis of what it out there and how the capability can be filled. [B]National Defence and to a lesser extent Public Works were accused last spring by the auditor general of not doing their homework when it chose to proceed with the multi-billion dollar proposal to buy the F-35 from Lockheed Martin. Defence officials were also chastised for lobbying for the stealth fighter even before they wrote the formal statement of requirements, which contained 28 necessary capabilities including weapons and censors. None of the F-35's rivals were contacted, including Boeing and Eurofighter.[/B] Col. Dave Burt, the officer in charge of the program, has been quoted as saying they "didn't feel the need" because they had "all the necessary information" and the technology gap between aircraft was too wide. A Public Works secretariat, set up in the aftermath of the auditor general's scathing criticism, intends to go beyond what would be a traditional market analysis of which planes can do what and consider how the allies are coping with delays and cost-overruns in the F-35 program. Of particular interest, according to sources, will be the Australians who recently chose to buy Super Hornets, the updated version of the F-18, in order to close the gap between their aging fighters and the introduction of F-35s after 2020. Another rapidly evolving sector that may — may not — factor into the review is the whole question of unmanned technology. Some critics have suggested that some of the surveillance missions the air force would like to see its new fighter carry out can be performed by highly sophisticated drones. In an interview with The Canadian Press last year, former air force chief, retired lt.-gen. Andres Deschamps, said drones are still evolving and still unable to perform intercepts and dogfight with enemy aircraft. [B]"I think there's a lot of confusion around what fighters can do," he said in the interview. "The foremost job of any fighter aircraft ... is air control, which is fundamental to any sovereign action; maintaining control of your own air space. Right now, the only tool that's fully effective right across the spectrum of air control is a fighter — a manned fighter."[/B] Defence sources said National Defence will have input into the new, expanded options analysis, but "it will not be driving the bus." [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Canada+talk+allies+competitors+options+replace+CF18s/7603004/story.html#ixzz2D63CAp2i"]source[/URL] Good. Maybe the other companies that approached Canada will get a chance now, notably Eurofighter and Saab.
It's a shame. If costs weren't so high, the F-35 would've made a pretty okay choice.
[QUOTE=JLim;38569371]It's a shame. If costs weren't so high, the F-35 would've made a pretty okay choice.[/QUOTE] Except it's 3 or 4 times over budget. What they should have done from the start is tell whoever is making it that they won't be paid if it goes over budget. This is what happens when the US government pretty much gives a blank check to a defence contractor
Super Hornets or Eurofighters would be better for us, cheaper and still in production. Plus more range and customization options for Canada's needs.
[QUOTE=download;38569404]Except it's 3 or 4 times over budget. What they should have done from the start is tell whoever is making it that they won't be paid if it goes over budget. This is what happens when the US government pretty much gives a blank check to a defence contractor[/QUOTE] Wasn't it revealed at one point that one contractor was grossly overcharging for even simple items like bolts?
[QUOTE=JLim;38569371]It's a shame. If costs weren't so high, the F-35 would've made a pretty okay choice.[/QUOTE] If we're talking about for stealth, it isn't a true stealth fighter. There's a whole bunch of other problems too: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35#Concerns_over_performance_and_safety[/url]
[QUOTE=download;38569404]Except it's 3 or 4 times over budget. What they should have done from the start is tell whoever is making it that they won't be paid if it goes over budget. This is what happens when the US government pretty much gives a blank check to a defence contractor[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38569644]Wasn't it revealed at one point that one contractor was grossly overcharging for even simple items like bolts?[/QUOTE] /siiigh. I find it disappointing when the government and contrctors make stupid decisions that ultimately go nowhere.
Seems short sighted to gouge on a contract that could be ridiculously lucrative if they would just play it straight. A significant portion of NATO is at least somewhat interested in the F-35, but that price tag is simply murder.
thank god. we dont need those.
Its almost as if the actual purpose of the F-35 is to spend money.
fuck all this shit BRING BACK THE ARROW
For the American side of things, it's completely unnecessary. The F-22 does everything the US wants right now, even after the hypoxia issues that were addressed by replacing a faulty valve.
Probably for the better, the F-35 is too big, too expensive, and too complicated for what it costs.
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;38569938]fuck all this shit BRING BACK THE ARROW[/QUOTE] rip avro arrow
[QUOTE=Dr. Fishtastic;38569938]fuck all this shit BRING BACK THE ARROW[/QUOTE] The arrow won't do what you need it to. Heavy interceptors are a specialized aircraft type that have been rendered unnecessary by tech advances. :( [quote]For the American side of things, it's completely unnecessary. The F-22 does everything the US wants right now, even after the hypoxia issues that were addressed by replacing a faulty valve.[/quote] The F-22 is basically an exclusive air supremacy aircraft. The F-35 is a multi-role aircraft with significantly expanded ground attack capabilities. Granted I'd much rather just see someone make a low-observable A-10 and buddy them with F-22's. Best ground attack AND best air supremacy! None of this half measure bullshit.
The F-22 is goddamn amazing. Though I would have loved it if the YF-23 had made it into production, that thing just looked cool as hell. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg/800px-Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Naaz;38570180]The F-22 is goddamn amazing. Though I would have loved it if the YF-23 had made it into production, that thing just looked cool as hell. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg/800px-Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Lockheed spends more money then they do on lobbyism.
[QUOTE=Naaz;38570180]The F-22 is goddamn amazing. Though I would have loved it if the YF-23 had made it into production, that thing just looked cool as hell. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg/800px-Northrop_YF-23_DFRC.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I prefer how the F-22 looks over the YF-23.
[QUOTE=Apache249;38570345]I prefer how the F-22 looks over the YF-23.[/QUOTE]The YF-23's equilateral triangle wings mmm *fapfapfap*
for what its worth the f-35 is pretty shit.
In all honesty, other than V/STOL capabilities, there is nothing the F-35 can do that that any other Gen IV aircraft (ie the F-16 or F/A-18) can do as good if not better. However, the one thing the Lightning II has for it is a kickass helmet: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/F-35_Helmet_Mounted_Display_System.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Dacheet;38570580]In all honesty, other than V/STOL capabilities, there is nothing the F-35 can do that that any other Gen IV aircraft (ie the F-16 or F/A-18) can do as good if not better. However, the one thing the Lightning II has for it is a kickass helmet: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/F-35_Helmet_Mounted_Display_System.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Looks like it would hurt the pilots neck.. looks so damn heavy.
Thank fuck if we don't buy it.. We do not NEED the F-35. It would be over kill for what we would actually use it for. Plus its too damn expensive.
[QUOTE=Dacheet;38570580]In all honesty, other than V/STOL capabilities, there is nothing the F-35 can do that that any other Gen IV aircraft (ie the F-16 or F/A-18) can do as good if not better. However, the one thing the Lightning II has for it is a kickass helmet: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/F-35_Helmet_Mounted_Display_System.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Doesn't that cost like 100 grand per helmet?
the f-35 is vulnerable to bruce willis
Thank fuck. That thing wasn't really our best choice at all.
All in all the best of multi-role fighter is the Su-35, Su-27, and Su-33 due to there maneuverability and multiple variants even though the 27 and 33 suffer from poor avionics and are old. On top of that there sexy too. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Sukhoi_Su-35_MAKS%272011_Avdeev.jpg/800px-Sukhoi_Su-35_MAKS%272011_Avdeev.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Sukhoi_Su-27SKM_at_MAKS-2005_airshow.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-spIKwzSeCaY/TuuMsD9nWkI/AAAAAAAAASA/rootpoCZlvc/s800/Su-33%2BFlanker-D%2BNaval%2BFighter.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Whitefox08;38570844]All in all the best of multi-role fighter is the Su-35, Su-27, and Su-33 due to there maneuverability and multiple variants even though the 27 and 33 suffer from poor avionics and are old.[/QUOTE] Su-35 has nice avionics, [IMG]http://aviationintel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Su35_cockpit-2.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Whitefox08;38570844]All in all the best of multi-role fighter is the Su-35, Su-27, and Su-33 due to there maneuverability and multiple variants even though the 27 and 33 suffer from poor avionics and are old. On top of that there sexy too. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Sukhoi_Su-35_MAKS%272011_Avdeev.jpg/800px-Sukhoi_Su-35_MAKS%272011_Avdeev.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Sukhoi_Su-27SKM_at_MAKS-2005_airshow.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-spIKwzSeCaY/TuuMsD9nWkI/AAAAAAAAASA/rootpoCZlvc/s800/Su-33%2BFlanker-D%2BNaval%2BFighter.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I higly doubt Canada would buy a russian plane
[QUOTE=recolour;38571021]I higly doubt Canada would buy a russian plane[/QUOTE] Before we got the Globemasters we were leasing Russian planes to move equipment over seas. Don't see why we wouldn't buy any fighters.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.