Canada may become the first country to ditch the F-35 fighter jet

[bufferunderrun]

Yeah, it makes much more sense to waste billions on an overhyped and under-performing fighter jet that will likely be obsolete when it's finally finished.

The F-35 is a failure, given it was meant to be a cheaper and more versatile 'stealth jet' than the F-22, except now its costs are soaring.

it's not is still a generation ahead of all the other jets, if you tell me that Canada don't need a top of the notch and expensive jet because it has uncle sam protection then i might even agree but the f-35 is not a failed project.
The "B" version is what is slowing it down and that is being built because some countries had those pathetic micro carriers and cannot us the A or C version.

[Yvaelle]

What does the Canadian Air Force themselves thing about it. Or the Canadian companies getting contracts in the developing process?.
Maybe it's overpriced, and ultimately pointless. But this just looks like petty political squabbling to me.

Good question, let's ask our Defense Minister (our highest military rep):

http://globalnews.ca/video/2527074/l...placing-cf-18s

They're not ruled out, but their purchase is not guaranteed - we do need a CF-18 replacement - but we don't think we need stealth capability: and that's part of what tacks on so much of the F-35's cost.

The joke is actually on you Yvaelle. Lest we forget since the 1950s, Canada and the United States have jointly operated NORAD, independent of their NATO partnership, and at least four generations of sensor systems have been spread all along the Canadian north to prepare against exactly what you call "a joke". And for that matter, thejre are dozens of pre-positioned depots spread out in these areas, stocked with US Military equipment and a lot of gas. You may not take it seriously, but nearly three generations of Canadian leaders plainly did/do. Who do you think is more wrong?

I think that the USSR is broken up, China is a major trading partner unlikely to declare war on us, and lacking the capability to invade/occupy.

I think we have a bunch of depots in the wilderness because of the Red Scare - from days long past - but Russia isn't Red anymore: and the idea that they would forcibly invade even back then was 99% anti-Communist propaganda and 1% reality. The USSR grew by influence, and by projecting the appearance of strength - they had difficulty holding small neighbouring satellite countries - occupying Canada across the sea was never feasible, and is not feasible.

Maybe that calculation changes in 5 or 10 years, and we need to start thinking about it more seriously - but China/Russia invading Canada in the next 10 years is not a thing.

Which leaves us with the US - the only people actually able to invade Canada. If it comes to that, are you saying if we buy a couple dozen F-35's, we will successfully defeat US air power?

If not China, Russia, or the US - then who the hell are we defending ourselves from? Is ISIS going to attack us in hot air balloons? Are we about to be invaded by hostile aliens, who are inexplicably vulnerable to our superior dogfighting skills and chemical-powered jets?

If we're not buying it for actual defense of Canada's sovereignty - then there is only one reason we're buying them - and that's to bomb people overseas like ISIS. Which, if we want to do that (and most Canadians want no part of it) - we would be better off buying some bombers / drones for pennies on the F-35 dollar.

You'll be hard pressed to to find anyone in the Canadian military, or any military anywhere, that shares your view on modernization or readiness. Frankly, you're bieng tremendously unfair and disrespectful to them by saying "you know what guys, make due with 1980s equipment that has had the wings flown off of it, never mind that every other country in NATO is ridding itself of it".

I'm saying our role in NATO should not be joint strike fighting - I don't think that's our expertise or a capability, we're particularly known for, or have even something we have much capacity to do: relatively. If all we want to do is bomb Raqqah and cities like it, we could bust out some damned Zeppelins and have significantly more lethal capacity.

I don't see the point in buying overpriced stealth strike fighters of questionable functionality, to hide our true intention of using them to bomb Whereveristan. If that is the true intention here, then our requirements are radically different than an F-35 (what we need is Zeppelins). If that is our true intent for the F-35, and we phrase it that way - then the support the F-35 would get in Canada would be even less than it does already: because Canadians by and large, don't like our involvement in bombing.

The joke of it is it's not even the F/A-18E/F you're flying. It's the CF-18. You know what the CF-18 is? The F/A-18A and B. Not even the C/D. The C/D are pieces of crap and are being quickly retired from the Navy as it buys more Super Hornets and F-35Cs. But the A/B model has an antique sensor system, even when compared to the C/D, monochrome cockpit displays, an older, less efficient engine, no synthetic aperture radar... the list goes on.

Oh noz! The US will maybe beat us at dogfighting for a few years

And I have to say something else... exactly how predatory does Vladmir Putin's Russia and China need to be the Western-dominated Liberal World Order, that Canada is a key beneficiary of mind you, before people like you take seriously the need to actually throw punches. Between Jeremy Corbyn and his crazy plan to denuclearize the United Kingdom, to the small group of liberal American Democrats who don't want to spend money on the new Long Range Stand Off Cruise Missile, to what you're saying... there is like this Western embarrassment, that yes, in some circumstances, we need to be ready to beat the other guy to a pulp if they threaten what we have. That doesn't mean we have to go out looking to beat up Russia and China, but it does mean actually paying for the things and owning the things that would allow us to do it.

It's like a weird, unilateral leftist western abhorrence to to the rather brutal nature of our world. Yes, it's completely fucking horrible thats the way the world is. But it is the way the world is. And those predatory nations, they don't give a shit about anyone's example of a better way. You disarm, they'll arm faster and press their advantage. That's what leftists haven't learned.

No amount of arming is going to make China/Russia fear Canada. We could have more arms than Kali, but we still have a total population about the size of Tokyo.

Our military strategy has to match our capability. We're not the Space Marines, we're the Eldar - diplomacy is our greatest weapon. The rest of your post is just fear/insecurity.

Anyway, the Gripen would do just fine. The F/A-18E/F would do just fine. Of course, both situations for undefended, permissive airspace, which by the way, is vanishing as Russia and China export anti-aircraft systems worldwide. They're poor substitutes to the F-35, but they'd do just fine. But the fact remains, as a member in good standing of NATO, you will be buying, and that is right. You really don't have much of a choice. Canada doesn't have the European excuse of the massively disorganized and unconsolidated Defense Industrial base. Canada currently spends 1% of it's GDP on defense. It's going to be 2% by 2020.

So I said we should delay 5-10 years, and your whole point boils down to, "No, it will be in 4 years!"?

[Skroe]

Good question, let's ask our Defense Minister (our highest military rep):

http://globalnews.ca/video/2527074/l...placing-cf-18s

They're not ruled out, but their purchase is not guaranteed - we do need a CF-18 replacement - but we don't think we need stealth capability: and that's part of what tacks on so much of the F-35's cost.



I think that the USSR is broken up, China is a major trading partner unlikely to declare war on us, and lacking the capability to invade/occupy.

Let's be very clear about something. First, China's developing expeditionary capability. It is coming. Right now the US is the only miltary force on the planet that can deploy it's army and navy anywhere in the world independent. CHina is working on that. They will, probably in the next twenty years, put an Aircraft Carrier battlegroup in the Atlantic. They are building an entirely new generation of tactical and strategic lift aircraft comparable to the C-130 and the C-17. A C-5 Galaxy clone may not be far beyond. The only reason to build such aircraft is to deploy military forces in an expeditionary manner. Presently only the West has truly expeditionary military capability. That will be changing.

Secondly, were China to attack US carriers in the Pacific and try to push us back to the third island chain, you would find yourself in a war with China under Article V of the Washington Treaty.

I think we have a bunch of depots in the wilderness because of the Red Scare - from days long past - but Russia isn't Red anymore: and the idea that they would forcibly invade even back then was 99% anti-Communist propaganda and 1% reality. The USSR grew by influence, and by projecting the appearance of strength - they had difficulty holding small neighbouring satellite countries - occupying Canada across the sea was never feasible, and is not feasible.

Who said anything about occupying Canada? The Russian strategy would have been to thrust across the Canadian frontier and destroy Early warning systems to blind NORAD from a nuclear attack. There are two ways world War III would have gone. Either nuclear first, as the Warsaw pact made a thrust across Europe and nuked US bases, or conventional that was carefully raised as to not cross the nuclear threshold. If Russia manage to blind NORAD, it would make the US decision to launch against Russia much more complicated. We wouldn't know if we were being attacked until the warheads were basically over southern Canada.

The Soviets weren't going to occupy us in World War III. They were going to wipe us out. And that would still be the model, to be clear.

Maybe that calculation changes in 5 or 10 years, and we need to start thinking about it more seriously - but China/Russia invading Canada in the next 10 years is not a thing.

It has nothing to do with invasions. But Canada must do it's part as a part of collective security. China will not try and occupy the US ever. But it certainly will, one day, try to push the US back beyond the third island chain.

Which leaves us with the US - the only people actually able to invade Canada. If it comes to that, are you saying if we buy a couple dozen F-35's, we will successfully defeat US air power?

If not China, Russia, or the US - then who the hell are we defending ourselves from? Is ISIS going to attack us in hot air balloons? Are we about to be invaded by hostile aliens, who are inexplicably vulnerable to our superior dogfighting skills and chemical-powered jets?

If we're not buying it for actual defense of Canada's sovereignty - then there is only one reason we're buying them - and that's to bomb people overseas like ISIS. Which, if we want to do that (and most Canadians want no part of it) - we would be better off buying some bombers / drones for pennies on the F-35 dollar.

You are defending yourselfs from Russia and China under the NATO Treaty. You are legally obligated to do your part as a part of the collective security arrangement. That means you arm yourself with modern weaponry. The key word is "deterrence". You shouldn't want to use these things.

I'm saying our role in NATO should not be joint strike fighting - I don't think that's our expertise or a capability, we're particularly known for, or have even something we have much capacity to do: relatively. If all we want to do is bomb Raqqah and cities like it, we could bust out some damned Zeppelins and have significantly more lethal capacity.

Ummm... what's french for "too damn bad?". It doesn't matter what "should be". There will be no two-tier NATO. The US has worked against that for years because some countries thought exactly as you do. And they lost, first in 2015, and again this year. You will do your part for strategic collective security. You will not get off the hook on defense spending because you somehow think your situation makes you special. You are not. You are one of twenty nine and you will hold up your part of the deal.

Again, Europe has an excuse, because they need to consolidate their defense industrial base. Canada doesn't have much of one, mostly buying American, and occasionally European. For you, that 2% of GDP target is reasonable. You are at 1%. You can afford not just the F-35, your can afford to double your order. The word for that by the way is "fair". Because 2% is what your country under your current PM agreed to.

I don't see the point in buying overpriced stealth strike fighters of questionable functionality,

The functionality is far from questionable. And at $85 million per copy, they're far from "overpriced". They're slightly more expensive than what a fully souped up F/A-18 E/F would cost. In fact, the baseline model, the F-/A-18 E/F costs just $24 million less.


The latest F-16E/F that the UAE bought, the most advanced F-16s ever, by the way, cost $100 million. More expensive than the F-35A.

By comparison the F-22 had about $200 million in unit costs. That is overpriced.

You think you'd be saving money. You wouldn't be.

to hide our true intention of using them to bomb Whereveristan. If that is the true intention here, then our requirements are radically different than an F-35 (what we need is Zeppelins). If that is our true intent for the F-35, and we phrase it that way - then the support the F-35 would get in Canada would be even less than it does already: because Canadians by and large, don't like our involvement in bombing.

Bombing whereveristan is NATO's hobby. Deterring against Russia and China is NATO's job.

Let me put it like this. The US uses aircraft to bomb ISIS that cost on average $25,000-$60,000 per flying hour. That is true of the UK. That is true of France. That is true of everyone bombing ISIS and everyone who bombed in Afghanistan. If the United States or any of these countries was really buying and equipping to fight terror, it would buy something sub-A-10 Thunderbolt. It would buy something like the AirLand Scorpion, a truly great aircraft for doing something like bombing ISIS, that costs about $3000 per flying hour. In fact the US Air Force may buy a few dozen just to do that to save some money. But that will be in addition to the 1700 F-35s it is buying. Because bombing ISIS is its hobby.

Oh noz! The US will maybe beat us at dogfighting for a few years

It's not the US you should be worried about. It's Russia. Or let me put it this way. The US and Canada operate a joint continental defense plan. US and Canadian Aircraft due patrols. US and Canadian Aircraft intercept Russian bombers and their escorts. Now the US does it's part largely with its most modern F-15Cs and F-22s. How fair is it that Canada sticks to less capable and older aircraft. Or let me put it another way... should we carrying more of the burden to defend Canadian Air Space, because you don't want to pay your fair share to do it properly yourselves?

Because while Russian aircraft are a very, very long time away from being able to challenge a modernized F-15C, much less the F-22, the F/A-18A/B that the CF-18 is based on, was surpassed by the Russians twenty years ago. You would not last against Su-30s or Su-35s. So does that make any part of continental defense defended by Canadian CF-18s just a bluff? Because that is essentially what it is, unless you equip yourselves properly. Europe, has the good sense to build lots of Eurofighter Typhoons, that when Armed with the MBDA meteor, will make short work of any Su-30. But the CF-18s right now can't even fire the AIM-120C, much less the far better AIM-120D. Because their radars aren't capable of guiding it.

No amount of arming is going to make China/Russia fear Canada. We could have more arms than Kali, but we still have a total population about the size of Tokyo.

China and Russia will never fear you specifically. But they do fear NATO. Were NATO to be a hollow force, of just the US and some allies with ancient equipment who don't pay for their defense needs, they will not fear NATO.

Canada is one brick in the must successful security wall ever built. You must do your part to be a strong brick. Because if you're not, whats the damn point of it?

Our military strategy has to match our capability. We're not the Space Marines, we're the Eldar - diplomacy is our greatest weapon. The rest of your post is just fear/insecurity.

Your military strategy is build primarily around collective security with a minor in expeditionary warfare when done in conjunction with the US or UK. That is doctrinally, factually, who the Canadian armed forces are organized. That is how most European military's are designed as well. It is designed around continental defense, deterrence and when needed, expeditionary warfare when done with the assistance of the US.

Your defense spending must be done with respect to that model in its entirety. That would be "doing your fair share".

THis is not about fear. it is about what Canada is legally obligated to do and agreed to. When Canada joined a collective security alliance, it agreed to do certain things and be beyond to certain requirements. Even in the last 7 weeks, with the NATO summit, it agreed to it yet again, with promising to raise defense spending to 2% of GDP.

That is the point of this post really. Either you do it or you don't. You don't say you're going to do it and then waffle and be like "ehhh we don't need these to fight in whereveristan". No you don't. But then if you don't buy them, get out of the collective security partnership and be on your own, and don't be surprised when Canada isn't consulted on continental security, which is kind of a big deal, considering you share a continent with a country that does do the kind of things that you think Canada shouldn't be doing. You want to be in that room, at that table. You don't want to hear about it when the President informs you about it.

Frankly, your post is tremendously unfair to the United States. It really takes our protection of this continent for granted. You have the misfortune of sharing a continent with us. That means certain things. That means you have to do your part, as you agreed.

So I said we should delay 5-10 years, and your whole point boils down to, "No, it will be in 4 years!"?

No. Read what I said again. You delay 5-10 years, you don't see any F-35s until the mid to late 2030s. I don't think you understand (or care) for that. Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant, starting in 2020, will do a maximum of about 110 aircraft per year. It has about a projected 2400 US orders to fill over about 35 years and another projected 1000 orders to fill, as a start for international partners.

Lockheed will not open a second a plant for the F-35. It would cost billions of dollars and take years to set up. The main F-35 plant right now is actually a retrofitted plant built for the F-22. They will not do it because by the time they did, in the late 2020s, they'll need to build another one for the F-X (the F-22 successor) program. Where F-X will be built is an open question itself. Lockheed and Boeing competed (but failed to win) for the B-21B, and of that, Boeing would have built most of it, because between the F-35 and F-16 production lines, Lockheed's capacity is maxed.

If Canada doesn't get in line now for the F-35, it'll be at best buying the F-35 when the US is beginning to think about the F-35 successor program, which on the current phased modernization / retirement calendar, will probably start in the 2040s. Your proposal to wait will arbitrarily throw Canada from being half a generation behind, to a full one and a half. And even deciding to go with the Gripen then, won't really do much better, because while the Gripen is the right aircraft for some countries, it's technological capability pales in comparison to the F-35.

This is especially true of continental defense, which should be Canadian defense bread and butter. You want a stealth fighter for that purpose, so when enemy aircraft are detected, you can shoot them down without being seen. And since IRST can counter stealth, you want an aircraft with a powerful sensor system that can fire an advanced missile from extremely ranges, should stealth fail.

The F-35 does both. The Gripen can fire the meteor, but it's sensor system is far worse. The F/A-18 E/F is being augmented with the F-35C in the US Navy specificially BECAUSE of it's lack of comparable sensor systems and stealth. The Rafale, doesn't have sensors like the F-35 either.

And in any case, Canada need an aircraft that can fire at least the AIM-120C, for crying out loud.

I'd be find if Canada just bought some damn Eurofighters and the MBDA meteors. You don't even have to buy American. Just don't buy Antiques or mid-level performance aircraft for air superiority missions, thinking your saving some cash. I mean, normally the argument would be one engine versus two, for cost savings, but Canada already affords the CF-18, a two engine fighter. So buy Typhoons. Europe is looking for customers to keep the production line open.

Oh, Typhoons are $100 million a piece. Yeah. More expensive than the F-35A. Because in 2016, $80-$130 million is what fighter aircraft cost.

[Kellhound]

Good question, let's ask our Defense Minister (our highest military rep):

http://globalnews.ca/video/2527074/l...placing-cf-18s

They're not ruled out, but their purchase is not guaranteed - we do need a CF-18 replacement - but we don't think we need stealth capability: and that's part of what tacks on so much of the F-35's cost.



I think that the USSR is broken up, China is a major trading partner unlikely to declare war on us, and lacking the capability to invade/occupy.

I think we have a bunch of depots in the wilderness because of the Red Scare - from days long past - but Russia isn't Red anymore: and the idea that they would forcibly invade even back then was 99% anti-Communist propaganda and 1% reality. The USSR grew by influence, and by projecting the appearance of strength - they had difficulty holding small neighbouring satellite countries - occupying Canada across the sea was never feasible, and is not feasible.

Maybe that calculation changes in 5 or 10 years, and we need to start thinking about it more seriously - but China/Russia invading Canada in the next 10 years is not a thing.

Which leaves us with the US - the only people actually able to invade Canada. If it comes to that, are you saying if we buy a couple dozen F-35's, we will successfully defeat US air power?

If not China, Russia, or the US - then who the hell are we defending ourselves from? Is ISIS going to attack us in hot air balloons? Are we about to be invaded by hostile aliens, who are inexplicably vulnerable to our superior dogfighting skills and chemical-powered jets?

If we're not buying it for actual defense of Canada's sovereignty - then there is only one reason we're buying them - and that's to bomb people overseas like ISIS. Which, if we want to do that (and most Canadians want no part of it) - we would be better off buying some bombers / drones for pennies on the F-35 dollar.



I'm saying our role in NATO should not be joint strike fighting - I don't think that's our expertise or a capability, we're particularly known for, or have even something we have much capacity to do: relatively. If all we want to do is bomb Raqqah and cities like it, we could bust out some damned Zeppelins and have significantly more lethal capacity.

I don't see the point in buying overpriced stealth strike fighters of questionable functionality, to hide our true intention of using them to bomb Whereveristan. If that is the true intention here, then our requirements are radically different than an F-35 (what we need is Zeppelins). If that is our true intent for the F-35, and we phrase it that way - then the support the F-35 would get in Canada would be even less than it does already: because Canadians by and large, don't like our involvement in bombing.



Oh noz! The US will maybe beat us at dogfighting for a few years



No amount of arming is going to make China/Russia fear Canada. We could have more arms than Kali, but we still have a total population about the size of Tokyo.

Our military strategy has to match our capability. We're not the Space Marines, we're the Eldar - diplomacy is our greatest weapon. The rest of your post is just fear/insecurity.



So I said we should delay 5-10 years, and your whole point boils down to, "No, it will be in 4 years!"?

F/A-18Es and Fs require either stand-off jammer support/SEAD or a low SAM threat environment, and they have several deficiencies in air to air combat the F-35 is able to overcome because of its stealth. Simply put, the F-35 provides more options than any non-stealth aircraft for an air force consisting of a single fighter type.

[Ulmita]

F/A-18Es and Fs require either stand-off jammer support/SEAD or a low SAM threat environment, and they have several deficiencies in air to air combat the F-35 is able to overcome because of its stealth. Simply put, the F-35 provides more options than any non-stealth aircraft for an air force consisting of a single fighter type.

You still need air superiority aircraft to support the F-35.

And Kell, unless Canada goes to invade Russia, we don't need the F-35s. We need fast interceptors if anything and air superiority aircrafts. I'd buy typhoons or the F-15C/E/SE.

I'd buy any day the raptor if you ever decided to sell than the F-35.

[Skroe]

You still need air superiority aircraft to support the F-35.

And Kell, unless Canada goes to invade Russia, we don't need the F-35s. We need fast interceptors if anything and air superiority aircrafts. I'd buy typhoons or the F-15C/E/SE.

I'd buy any day the raptor if you ever decided to sell than the F-35.

The F-35 armed with a long range missile like the MBDA meteor is more dangerous in BVR combat than the F-22. The F-35's sensor system is much more advanced than the F-22. It has a powerful electronic warfare suite that the F-22 doesn't have. It has lock-on-after-launch, which the F-22 doesn't have (yet, until it gets its own helmet mounted cueing system). The F-35's radar might be powerful enough to actually fry enemy electronics. This shouldn't be surprising. Like it's engine, like its stealth, the F-35's sensor systems were derived from the F-22. Lockheed Martin built both. It's the successor platform in many ways. They took F-22 systems and put another decade and a half of work into them, and then loaded them into a smaller air frame.

The F-22's advantage is that it can carry more missiles, has more energy and would be by far the superior aircraft in a within visual range encounter. It could also intercept enemy aircraft faster and have more endurance. But the F-22 does not have a sensor system or helmet mounted cueing system comparable to the F-35.

Once again, should F-22 production restart, the big decision to be made would be to simply restart the F-22A production line, or retrofit the F-22 with F-35 tech (basically put much of the F-35 inside an F-22 air frame and remove the mostly useless but expensive thrust vectoring) and call it the F-22C.

The F-22 is the more well rounded air superiority platform by far. But for single-airframe countries, and for certain types of (highly probable) encounters, the F-35 may be even better at it.

Of course the best route would be to build a F-22C and sell it to Japan and Australia. But the F-22 already is far too expensive for any but the richest countries with the biggest tax bases to own. It's the same reason F-15s didn't sell nearly as well as the F-16 did. While a fly away cost for the F-35A is about $80-90 million, the fly away cost for an F-22A was in the end be around $120 million. The middle lots were close to $200 million. An F-22C, I see $200 million per jet easy. Probably closer to $300 million for the first lots.

The US can afford it. Can Canada? Probably not.

[Ulmita]

Canada doesn't need F-35s dude. We simply don't. Stealth is (almost) useless for when you defend and BVR is an unproven concept that becomes obsolete as EW evolves. Also, the meteor will be fitted in many different aircrafts, like the typhoons not just F-35s.

Waste of money, Trudeau should stick the finger on the retarded deal Harper signed (who btw has a history of being USA's little bitch fanboy. good riddance as the British say)

[Deleted]

We have one of the most respected world leaders. We'll be okay.

I always thought he was a bit of a liberal tosser but I can see why many respect him I guess.

[Skroe]

Canada doesn't need F-35s dude. We simply don't. Stealth is (almost) useless for when you defend and BVR is an unproven concept that becomes obsolete as EW evolves. Also, the meteor will be fitted in many different aircrafts, like the typhoons not just F-35s.

Waste of money, Trudeau should stick the finger on the retarded deal Harper signed (who btw has a history of being USA's little bitch fanboy. good riddance as the British say)

With the F-35, you get the stealth for free. It's baked into the design. It doesn't need the maintenance that even the F-22 needs. You speak of the desirability of the F-22. It isn't even fully "stealth-ed up" unless it has certain seams on its skin taped, B-2 spirit style, which it doesn't always do. The F-35 doesn't need this. The downside is that it's RCS is larger than the F-22s, but not by much, and with a far simplier logistical footprint, suitable for export.

BVR is not an unproven concept. I'm not sure why you think it is, and the only country doing much when it comes to EW in the air at the moment is the US. Russia and China aren't exactly building next generation jammers or anything.

The Meteor can bef itted to many aircraft, and as I mentioned above, the Eurofighter would be a good alternative. But just based on the stealth and sensors alone, the F-35 is a better one and it's cheaper than the Eurofighter.

But even talking about the Meteor, with reference to Canada, is a bit optimistic because their CF-18s, based on the F/A-18A/B (not even the C/D) can't fire the AIM-120C/D, much less the meteor. So really anything they buy that can fire the AIM-120, much less the Meteor, will be an upgrade.

But I hope you finally understand that there are key, practical differences between the F-35. THe F-35 is simply newer and more advanced and does somethings better. The F-22 is older, but does some things better. An F-22C is an enticing concept that really needs to happen. Putting the F-35 sensor suite on the F-22 is very exciting.

[Purpleisbetter]

The lies...

F35 has actually reached pretty much the IOC, so the 2030 is beyond retarded statement.

LRIP11 F35Bs actually have a fly-away costs around the 90M $ mark(close, very close to the 80M US $ super hornet).

The F35A over the last months of testing has thrashed any legacy fighter from USAF (F16 block 50, F15E fitted with the APG82v1).

F35A produced in Cameri will hit a fly away cost of 69M €.


Nothing stops a country from buying them a batch of custom Made SUs, but then don't complain if you end up like Indian's AF that has to ground permanently 39 out of 200ish frames ijust in the last year (Jul 15 - Jul 16) because of engines and software failure and thus requiring an emergency 8B US $ retrofitting program (very, very recent deal).

If any given country is willing to pull off from an expensive deal because it prioritize other things, then hat off to it; but making it an issue because of blatantly false performance reports due to misinformation it's plain stupid.

Also, F35A and B can be safely defined as a commercial success, with so many units being build and sold all over europe and a few asian countrie as well; while the C spec could be even worse then Super Hornet (commercially speaking ofc).

[Ulmita]

With the F-35, you get the stealth for free. It's baked into the design. It doesn't need the maintenance that even the F-22 needs. You speak of the desirability of the F-22. It isn't even fully "stealth-ed up" unless it has certain seams on its skin taped, B-2 spirit style, which it doesn't always do. The F-35 doesn't need this. The downside is that it's RCS is larger than the F-22s, but not by much, and with a far simplier logistical footprint, suitable for export.

We really don't need the stealth. We wont be invading anyone trust me on that.

BVR is not an unproven concept.

Combining data from Israeli and American missions, he finds that out of 632 shots taken with BVR-capable missiles, only four resulted in kills from beyond visual range — a scant 0.6 percent. During this same period, 528 air-to-air kills were made at closer range — 144 with guns and 384 with missiles fired at opponents within visual range.

BVR HAS ALMOST NEVER WORKED

Starting with Desert Storm, there was an uptick in the number of kills achieved using the newer AMRAAM missiles, which are designed for relatively long range kills, but because neither the number of missiles used nor the range at which the BVR-capable missiles notched kills was recorded, it’s hard to reach any firm conclusions. We do have anecdotal evidence: In 1999, when two MiG-25s violated the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, U.S. fighters fired six of our most sophisticated BVR missiles at them. All six missiles missed and the MiG-25s escaped to fight another day. While pervasive coverage by AWACS surveillance and control planes has given our pilots much better friend-or-foe recognition, allowing more BVR shots to be taken, true BVR kills against competent opponents are rare.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ike-fredenburg

I'm not sure why you think it is, and the only country doing much when it comes to EW in the air at the moment is the US. Russia and China aren't exactly building next generation jammers or anything.

EW is something Russia excels at just like the missile engines. In many aspects Russian EW systems are much ahead than the american analogues. And as for they dont work on anything: http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/russi...tion-warplane/

The Meteor can bef itted to many aircraft, and as I mentioned above, the Eurofighter would be a good alternative. But just based on the stealth and sensors alone, the F-35 is a better one and it's cheaper than the Eurofighter.

Offcourse is a better alternative. The Typhoon is actually able to intercept the alliens if they ever try to skim our borders. With the F-35 we need to call them and ask them to wait abit.

F-35 dude is not an interceptor nor an air superiority aircraft. I am not sure what are you motives on trying to portrait as one. We would still need Typhoons / F-15s /18s to compliment its (many) shortcomings.

I don't understand why you are defending the F-35 so much. The specific plane can't achieve a multiple role function and thus why airforces need to complement it with other aircrafts.

We as country don't need such kind of airforce since especially we keep it inside our borders.

[Deleted]

B-b-but...'murica!

Why exactly should Canada care about US presence in Asia, that's a diffrent continent, shitty reason to buy F35.

[Ulmita]

B-b-but...'murica!

Why exactly should Canada care about US presence in Asia, that's a diffrent continent, shitty reason to buy F35.

The only thing America could say for us to buy it is to guard the artic border. However, F-35 is slow as fk an can't intercept poop if it came down to that.
Thus why Canada is much better getting the typhoon or the F15C/SE

[caervek]

MiG-35 is finding little interest.

The upmarket countries, including Rising middle income countries that used to buy Russian, are buying European (namely the Rafale and the Gripen) since the US won't freely export the F-35 like it does late model F-16s for years to come. The ones that aren't buying European are more interested in the export potential of the Chinese J-31.

Well Egypt has already ordered some, and that's basically the ball rolling because if your country is located near Egypt then you don't want to be wasting money on J-31's or Gripens just so they can use them for target practice if things go south. I'm not saying the countries in the area will all go out and buy Eurofighters or better when they are updating their air force but it will affect purchase choices, and that in turn will probably result in more MiG sales to countries who are near them.

Also once the situation in Syria finally calms down Syria will need to rebuild their air force, and you can bet they won't be looking to the US or EU to make purchases.

The MiG-35, being a modernize MiG-29, inherits all that model's deep problems.

Pretty much the only thing it inherits is the physical airframe, which was one of it's best features.

That said there is nothing in terms of capabilities the Gripen does that the F-35 doesn't do far better. Especially when it comes to sensors.

It's almost like the F-35 hit the market twenty years later or something

Again, what matters is what the F-35 is firing. An F-35 armed with the Meteor will be one of the world's most capable Air Superiority fighters. It has a better sensor suite than the F-35. It's low observable. It'll shoot down the aircraft from BVR before it is detected. It's as simple as that.

Agreed (I'm assuming you were comparing it to the F-22 not itself).

- - - Updated - - -

F-35 dude is not an interceptor nor an air superiority aircraft. I am not sure what are you motives on trying to portrait as one. We would still need Typhoons / F-15s /18s to compliment its (many) shortcomings.

Technically speaking any plane is an air superiority aircraft if it's loaded with long range missiles and decent sensors. IIRC the US actually had a plan at one point to build an air superiority plane that was basically subsonic recon plane carrying loads of AIM-54 Phoenix missiles.

Combining data from Israeli and American missions, he finds that out of 632 shots taken with BVR-capable missiles, only four resulted in kills from beyond visual range — a scant 0.6 percent.

In fairness, the Iranians made very good use of BVR, employing AIM-54 Phoenix missiles against Iraq's Tu-22 Blinder bombers. (they actually held the record for BVR kills for many years plus the F-14 kill records).

[Ulmita]

In fairness, the Iranians made very good use of BVR, employing AIM-54 Phoenix missiles against Iraq's Tu-22 Blinder bombers. (they actually held the record for BVR kills for many years plus the F-14 kill records).

0.6% sounds very low to me and even if that % is 10x-20x even 30x as high (which 632 missile shots is a huge number to safely draw conclusions from) aka 20% i would still invest in dog fighters like the typhoons hands down.

[Muadiib]

"I trust PM Trudeau to make the right decision."

That was your first mistake, Trudeau is a fool and will ruin your country if he's allowed to continue.

[caervek]

0.6% sounds very low to me and even if that % is 10x-20x even 30x as high (which 632 missile shots is a huge number to safely draw conclusions from) aka 20% i would still invest in dog fighters like the typhoons hands down.

Basing decisions on what aircraft to buy in 2016, on data collected about air combat between 1955-1991, is pretty stupid (no offense intended).

[Ulmita]

Basing decisions on what aircraft to buy in 2016, on data collected about air combat between 1955-1991, is pretty stupid (no offense intended).

Still thats the best BVR data we have to date as species, everything else is theories and assumptions.

You should really read the article, it is eye opening and it includes reports from other relative sources like RAND for example.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418430/sixty-years-american-air-power-dominance-are-threatened-bad-strategy-mike-fredenburg

A 2011 RAND report noted that enemies successfully engaged beyond visible range after 1991 “were fleeing, non-maneuvering, and did not employ countermeasures.” “In Operation Allied Force,” the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, RAND notes, “the Serbian MiG-29s that were shot down did not even have functioning radars.” In other words, we might now be achieving BVR kills against third-rate vastly outnumbered opponents while enjoying pervasive AWACS coverage

As i said BVR is NOT a proven effective way of battle.

[caervek]

As i said BVR is NOT a proven effective way of battle.

Not if you look at data from 1955-1991 no, however starting with Desert storm most kills have been BVR, in fact the first Coalition and Iraqi kills of that war were both BVR, as was the simultaneous shutdown of three MiG-23's by three F-15's.

[Ulmita]

Not if you look at data from 1955-1991 no, however starting with Desert storm most kills have been BVR, in fact the first Coalition and Iraqi kills of that war were both BVR, as was the simultaneous shutdown of three MiG-23's by three F-15's.

BVR HAS ALMOST NEVER WORKED

Starting with Desert Storm, there was an uptick in the number of kills achieved using the newer AMRAAM missiles, which are designed for relatively long range kills, but because neither the number of missiles used nor the range at which the BVR-capable missiles notched kills was recorded, it’s hard to reach any firm conclusions.

We do have anecdotal evidence:

In 1999, when two MiG-25s violated the no-fly zone over southern Iraq, U.S. fighters fired six of our most sophisticated BVR missiles at them. All six missiles missed and the MiG-25s escaped to fight another day. While pervasive coverage by AWACS surveillance and control planes has given our pilots much better friend-or-foe recognition, allowing more BVR shots to be taken, true BVR kills against competent opponents are rare.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ike-fredenburg

As i said, read the article.

BVR is something theoretical really. There was never a long range kill against a competent airforce with the plane engaging in counter measures and maneuvers.

Now days every flanker is a growler like capable. They come with huge EW capabilities. Good luck shooting down one of those BVR.

Dude, Russia has figured it out correctly: Build tons of cheap aircrafts carrying very capable missiles with huge EW capabilities and just swarm the fuck out of an opponent. You guys invest in BVR, something not proven, they invest in super maneuverable aircrafts for dog fighting.

They must know something more to do that right? I bet that in a big war vs a competent airforce most of shoot-downs will be within visual range.