[Curtman]

Canada: You need to start over on fighter jets
BY WINSLOW T. WHEELER, OTTAWA CITIZEN
Winslow T. Wheeler is director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information in Washington D.C. He was invited last December to comment on the F-35 to the House of Commons' Standing Committee on National Defence; this commentary is based on his written testimony. He was in Ottawa last Tuesday for a presentation on Canada's planned purchase the F-35s.

[saturn_656]

According to that same author our F-35's will be subsidized by the US.

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm ... =index.cfm

Quote:

Except for some minor caveats by the parliamentary budget officer's report, there appears to be a consensus in Canada that they will be exempt from paying a full share of the cost to research, develop and test the F-35 in the United States. The memorandum of understanding Canada has signed purports to support that contention, and U.S. law, which ostensibly requires foreign weapon purchasers to pay the same price as the United States, is so full of loopholes that there may be a legal basis for the contention. The politics of the matter in the United States may be a little different, however.

Bad deal, indeed.

[SprCForr]

Fuck it. Sweet talk the US and get F-22's.

[Canadian_Mind]

It'll end up being cheaper by the end of it.

[andyt]

Curt, you should know by now that Wheeler is a leftwing ideologue working for a think tank with an anti-military agenda. Or maybe an anti-military ideologue working for a think tank with a leftwing agenda. I can never quite get that straight.

The Aussies went with the Super Hornet after deciding the F35 wasn't what they wanted. Maybe a lesson for us in that?

[Canadian_Mind]

Aussies are planning on buying 1 F-35 for every F-18 they have in inventory, including the recent Super hornets. the super hornets were meant to be a stopover for the now retired F-111.

Ie the Aussies have committed to buying over 100 of the things. Maybe a lesson for us in that?

[andyt]

Oh, Ok. Well, what are we waiting for then.

The Aussies also estimate their cost at about double what the Harper Govt says, so maybe they have a more realistic view on the matter. Guess they can afford the 15 billion price tag since they're doing very well economically.

[Bruce_the_vii]

The Center for Defense Information seems to be retired military leaders, not left wing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for ... nformation

The criticisms of the F35 are fairly hard hitting.

[andyt]

Bruce_the_vii wrote:

The Center for Defense Information seems to be retired military leaders, not left wing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for ... nformation

The criticisms of the F35 are fairly hard hitting.

Well you're wrong. I was assured he's a left wing anti-military type. Must be true.

He did get something wrong tho. The article I posted about him had him saying the flyaway cost of the airplane didn't include an engine. Turns out that's not right.

[Winnipegger]

There are 3 European fighter jets available to us; all built by NATO allies, all less expensive than the F-35, and all perform BETTER.

When Russia flew their first test flight of the prototype Tu-95 Bear bomber in 1952, the Canadian Air Force came up with requirements for a new all weather interceptor to shoot it down. Those requirements were written in 1953. Engineers at the time complained it was too ambitious, but got down to work and by 1958 the first test flight of the Avro Arrow flew. Initial test used the engine from the CF-101, the new engine was ready in 1959. Requirements included the ability to cruise without afterburner at mach 1.5 at 50,000, and top speed with afterburner something faster than mach 2. Engineering documents state the Arrow could fly mach 2.5+ with afterburner, and cruise at mach 1.5. Cruising without afterburner faster than the speed of sound is called supercruise. Tests with the old engine could only supercruise at mach 1.02, but the Arrow could supercruise even with that. The only fighters able to supercruise today are the F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Rafale. The first two can supercruise at mach 1.5, the Rafale can barely supercruise at mach 1.02.

The only fighter jets built today that can match the requirements for the Arrow are the F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon. Simulations show the Typhoon can defeat a Russian MiG-39 consistently, the Rafale has a 1:1 kill ratio so it's up to the pilot. The only fighter that is better than the Typhoon is F-22. But the F-22 is the only jet more expensive than the F-35! The Typhoon costs less than the F-35. In fact, the Typhoon cost less than the F-35 before Lockheed-Martin raised the price of the F-35 by 50%. The price shown in the table above is before the price increase. Lockheed-Martin did that after President Obama cancelled the F-22. He cancelled the F-22 specifically because of cost.

By the way, when the Avro Arrow was cancelled, some engineers went to Europe to work on the Concord. When they developed the Eurofighter Typhoon the team included former Concord engineers. So there's a reason the Typhoon looks like an Avro Arrow updated to 21st century technology.

[bootlegga]

SprCForr wrote:

Fuck it. Sweet talk the US and get F-22's.

That would be the ideal choice IMHO (especially because it has two engines - ideal for the Arctic patrols Harper and Co tell us we need the F-35 for), but the US has decreed that nobody but the USAF will fly them and spurned offers from Japan and Australia.

[bootlegga]

Winnipegger wrote:

There are 3 European fighter jets available to us; all built by NATO allies, all less expensive than the F-35, and all perform BETTER.

When Russia flew their first test flight of the prototype Tu-95 Bear bomber in 1952, the Canadian Air Force came up with requirements for a new all weather interceptor to shoot it down. Those requirements were written in 1953. Engineers at the time complained it was too ambitious, but got down to work and by 1958 the first test flight of the Avro Arrow flew. Initial test used the engine from the CF-101, the new engine was ready in 1953. Requirements included the ability to cruise without afterburner at mach 1.5 at 50,000, and top speed with afterburner something faster than mach 2. Engineering documents state the Arrow could fly mach 2.5+ with afterburner, and cruise at mach 1.5. Cruising without afterburner faster than the speed of sound is called supercruise. Tests with the old engine could only supercruise at mach 1.02, but the Arrow could supercruise even with that. The only fighters able to supercruise today are the F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Rafale. The first two can supercruise at mach 1.5, the Rafale can barely supercruise at mach 1.02.

The only fighter jets built today that can match the requirements for the Arrow are the F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon. Simulations show the Typhoon can defeat a Russian MiG-39 consistently, the Rafale has a 1:1 kill ratio so it's up to the pilot. The only fighter that is better than the Typhoon is F-22. But the F-22 is the only jet more expensive than the F-35! The Typhoon costs less than the F-35. In fact, the Typhoon cost less than the F-35 before Lockheed-Martin raised the price of the F-35 by 50%. The price shown in the table above is before the price increase. Lockheed-Martin did that after President Obama cancelled the F-22. He cancelled the F-22 specifically because of cost.

By the way, when the Avro Arrow was cancelled, some engineers went to Europe to work on the Concord. When they developed the Eurofighter Typhoon the team included former Concord engineers. So there's a reason the Typhoon looks like an Avro Arrow updated to 21st century technology.

Frankly, I don't care what the next fighter costs - we should be buying the plane that best suits our needs - not the cheapest one we can find.

My rationale for not supporting the F-35 is mostly based on its single engine - while we haven't had too many fighter crashes in the Arctic to date, every plane we've used up there has had two engines - so that if one fails, the pilot can try to get the plane home. With a single engine fighter, the plane is gone unless it happens to be within 50 klicks of CFB Yellowknife. Bye-bye $75-$150 million and maybe even a pilot.

BTW, your Typhoon costs look too low - from all the data I've seen, to buy Typhoons right now from the assembly line, the cost would approach (or even exceed) that of the F-35. The only models that were cheaper were earlier runs, and even then they were only marginally cheaper.

[DrCaleb]

SprCForr wrote:

Fuck it. Sweet talk the US and get F-22's.

They aren't building them anymore.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-21/poli ... M:POLITICS

Plus, they weren't destined for any force outside the US with all the bells and whistles. They'd have been stripped of many capabilities from what I read.

[Bruce_the_vii]

The Parliamentary Budget Office puts the 30 years cost of 65 F35's at $30 billion. That's $461 million each. At some point cost counts.

[Regina]

Winnipegger wrote:

There are 3 European fighter jets available to us; all built by NATO allies, all less expensive than the F-35, and all perform BETTER.

When Russia flew their first test flight of the prototype Tu-95 Bear bomber in 1952, the Canadian Air Force came up with requirements for a new all weather interceptor to shoot it down. Those requirements were written in 1953. Engineers at the time complained it was too ambitious, but got down to work and by 1958 the first test flight of the Avro Arrow flew. Initial test used the engine from the CF-101, the new engine was ready in 1959. Requirements included the ability to cruise without afterburner at mach 1.5 at 50,000, and top speed with afterburner something faster than mach 2. Engineering documents state the Arrow could fly mach 2.5+ with afterburner, and cruise at mach 1.5. Cruising without afterburner faster than the speed of sound is called supercruise. Tests with the old engine could only supercruise at mach 1.02, but the Arrow could supercruise even with that. The only fighters able to supercruise today are the F-22, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Rafale. The first two can supercruise at mach 1.5, the Rafale can barely supercruise at mach 1.02.

The only fighter jets built today that can match the requirements for the Arrow are the F-22 and Eurofighter Typhoon. Simulations show the Typhoon can defeat a Russian MiG-39 consistently, the Rafale has a 1:1 kill ratio so it's up to the pilot. The only fighter that is better than the Typhoon is F-22. But the F-22 is the only jet more expensive than the F-35! The Typhoon costs less than the F-35. In fact, the Typhoon cost less than the F-35 before Lockheed-Martin raised the price of the F-35 by 50%. The price shown in the table above is before the price increase. Lockheed-Martin did that after President Obama cancelled the F-22. He cancelled the F-22 specifically because of cost.

By the way, when the Avro Arrow was cancelled, some engineers went to Europe to work on the Concord. When they developed the Eurofighter Typhoon the team included former Concord engineers. So there's a reason the Typhoon looks like an Avro Arrow updated to 21st century technology.

All engineers who had anything to do with the Arrow are now 85-95 years old. Many also went to work for NASA but the rockets didn't look like the Arrow.

Any European fighter is not an option. Retooling and re-equipping everyday fasteners alone would be a nightmare and add to the cost.