First mini-test of foreign policy : Canada's F-35

[sarahtasher]

(Yes, obviously, Canada buying 60 F-35 or not is not going to change much for the USA, that's obvious. But it would have a symbolic effect)

The F-35 program is not very popular in Canada to say the least (I'm the first to admit that there is not much other choices, that said). PM Trudeau, following for the record his electoral promises, decided yesterday to buy 18 Super Hornets as a stop gap measure before starting anew an (unspecified) program for selecting a new fighter, by mid-2017

IE, it's ''subtly'' telling US defence contractors to make the offer more palatable-less the price that operational F-35s at a definitive price ready at a given date. With Canadian jobs coming with it (Because Dassault, even if their Rafale is not as good, promised those jobs) , which needless to say is tricky ATM. (It's worth nothing that Trudeau would likely prefer actual jobs, but would probably accept face saving general declaration toward creating some jobs)


Or at least some engagement toward it. Angry tweets towards ''LULZ Canada sucks'' and ''American jobs first'', especially from the presidency, is not going to do the trick

- - - Updated - - -

Small bump, as without foreign buyers, the program will end up costing a lot to the American taxpayer...

[Skroe]

Canada is being extremely short sighted buying F/A-18E/Fs instead of the F-35.

The F-35B, launched from an Amphibious Assault ship, just aimed, launched and guided a SM-6 Missile launched from a US destroyer into a target drone.


This represents the realization of the F-35B's potential as a stealthy "flying router / sensor node" within a network centric warfare framework. No other aircraft in the world can do this.

The Rafale, F/A-18 and Gripen are fine aircraft in their own way.... for the 2000s, 2010s and early 2020s. The F-35 is built with the late 2020s, 2030s and 2040s in mind. F-35 technology, including it's engine, is forming the basis of the next generation of Air superiority technology. The F-22 replacement, the B-21 Raider Stealth bomber, and the F/A-18 replacement will all be derived from it.

To put it another way, buying the F/A-18, Gripen or Rafle is buying today's model for tomorrow's environment. Canada will save some money now, but will find itself, ten years from now, needing something more advanced than the F/A-18. In fact, ten years from now is about when the US Navy will begun retiring it's older Super Hornets (at that point, 30 year old airframes) in favor it's "F/A-XX" replacement, whatever that is.

It just seems terribly shortsighted and Canada will end up spending more money in the end. By Contrast the F-35A will almost certainly be re-engined in the mid 2020s, and is built with modularity and upgradability in mind. Over the long term, it is more cost effective. Because what's Canada's solution in the late 2020s when the F/A-18E/F ages out? Buy "F-35D's then? Buy a European aircraft that would be just as old? Buy more hornets?

Fact is, if you want a fifth generation fighter, your only international sale option is the F-35. Nobody else is anywhere close.

[Heladys]

Canada is being extremely short sighted buying F/A-18E/Fs instead of the F-35.

The F-35B, launched from an Amphibious Assault ship, just aimed, launched and guided a SM-6 Missile launched from a US destroyer into a target drone.


This represents the realization of the F-35B's potential as a stealthy "flying router / sensor node" within a network centric warfare framework. No other aircraft in the world can do this.

The Rafale, F/A-18 and Gripen are fine aircraft in their own way.... for the 2000s, 2010s and early 2020s. The F-35 is built with the late 2020s, 2030s and 2040s in mind. F-35 technology, including it's engine, is forming the basis of the next generation of Air superiority technology. The F-22 replacement, the B-21 Raider Stealth bomber, and the F/A-18 replacement will all be derived from it.

To put it another way, buying the F/A-18, Gripen or Rafle is buying today's model for tomorrow's environment. Canada will save some money now, but will find itself, ten years from now, needing something more advanced than the F/A-18. In fact, ten years from now is about when the US Navy will begun retiring it's older Super Hornets (at that point, 30 year old airframes) in favor it's "F/A-XX" replacement, whatever that is.

It just seems terribly shortsighted and Canada will end up spending more money in the end. By Contrast the F-35A will almost certainly be re-engined in the mid 2020s, and is built with modularity and upgradability in mind. Over the long term, it is more cost effective. Because what's Canada's solution in the late 2020s when the F/A-18E/F ages out? Buy "F-35D's then? Buy a European aircraft that would be just as old? Buy more hornets?

Fact is, if you want a fifth generation fighter, your only international sale option is the F-35. Nobody else is anywhere close.

We don't need that capability, flat out. Maybe you think you do, good for you have fun. We don't.

[Skroe]

We don't need that capability, flat out. Maybe you think you do, good for you have fun. We don't.

I mean under that logic, you don't need much more than some F-86 Sabres. But that logic is faulty because a requirement of the US/Canadian alliance and NATO is general is interoperability of military forces.

With A2/AD going up across the globe, the ability for 4th Generation Aircraft like the F/A-18 to operate in dangerous regions is rapidly declining. Stealthy aircraft, and beyond that network-centric aircraft that can act as spotters/ relays for long range missiles (to take out those A2/AD sites) are the only way to go.

Canada does not need that for strictly territorial defense. However Canada (or any country) intends to be a fully integrated part of NATO and fight offensively along side the US, it must subscribe to the highest standard, not the lowest, and that means being compatible with the latest approach. The US simply can't be the only country in the alliance able to destroy A2/AD by itself because it is the only country that has bought next generation weapons.

As I wrote last time this came up some months ago... this isn't even an appeal to buy the F-35 per se. The F-35 just happens to be the only option because there is no European peer to it. It's an appeal not to buy a 20 year old 1990s design in the last decade and a third of its life. You're just going to spend even more money later.

To put it in gamer terms, the Super Hornet in 2017 is like buying an XBOX 360 3.0 design, two months afer XBOX One came out. Sure you'll get a good few y ears out of the 360, but before too long, you're going to want the ONE to play with your friends. Facile example? Yes. But it's exactly the same principle.

Frankly, if Canada is purely interested in an air superiority fighter aircraft as territorial defense, the ONLY option is the Eurofighter Typhoon. It is the best fighter in the world not named F-22 (and bests even that in some regimes of flight). Everything else on the market, as an air superiority fighter, is second rate to that. It is also extremely expensive (more than the F-35) and, as a two-engine fighter, would require buying double the engines and spares.

If Canada is looking for a Strike Fighter, or primarily a strike aircraft, the F-35 is easily the best choice.

The Gripen and Rafale are both worse options than the Eurofighter in Air Superiority. They are also both worse options for ground attack / multirole strike. And they're not hugely cheaper than the F-35A anyway.

So to me, the real question is, "how are you going to use this"?

[Deleted]

For now it doesnt seem to be such a good deal anyway.
In the Netherlands the (political) support is also decreasing. The only reason we will buy the F35 is that it provides jobs here.

[Polyxo]

I mean under that logic, you don't need much more than some F-86 Sabres. But that logic is faulty because a requirement of the US/Canadian alliance and NATO is general is interoperability of military forces.

With A2/AD going up across the globe, the ability for 4th Generation Aircraft like the F/A-18 to operate in dangerous regions is rapidly declining. Stealthy aircraft, and beyond that network-centric aircraft that can act as spotters/ relays for long range missiles (to take out those A2/AD sites) are the only way to go.

Canada does not need that for strictly territorial defense. However Canada (or any country) intends to be a fully integrated part of NATO and fight offensively along side the US, it must subscribe to the highest standard, not the lowest, and that means being compatible with the latest approach. The US simply can't be the only country in the alliance able to destroy A2/AD by itself because it is the only country that has bought next generation weapons.

As I wrote last time this came up some months ago... this isn't even an appeal to buy the F-35 per se. The F-35 just happens to be the only option because there is no European peer to it. It's an appeal not to buy a 20 year old 1990s design in the last decade and a third of its life. You're just going to spend even more money later.

To put it in gamer terms, the Super Hornet in 2017 is like buying an XBOX 360 3.0 design, two months afer XBOX One came out. Sure you'll get a good few y ears out of the 360, but before too long, you're going to want the ONE to play with your friends. Facile example? Yes. But it's exactly the same principle.

Frankly, if Canada is purely interested in an air superiority fighter aircraft as territorial defense, the ONLY option is the Eurofighter Typhoon. It is the best fighter in the world not named F-22 (and bests even that in some regimes of flight). Everything else on the market, as an air superiority fighter, is second rate to that. It is also extremely expensive (more than the F-35) and, as a two-engine fighter, would require buying double the engines and spares.

If Canada is looking for a Strike Fighter, or primarily a strike aircraft, the F-35 is easily the best choice.

The Gripen and Rafale are both worse options than the Eurofighter in Air Superiority. They are also both worse options for ground attack / multirole strike. And they're not hugely cheaper than the F-35A anyway.

So to me, the real question is, "how are you going to use this"?

My assumption is that Canada, and other countries are largely holding out for a streamlined redesign, or another 5th generation fighter they can climb on board. The F-35 was a fantastic electronics and weapons platform, that got turned into a flying Bradley due to mission creep and demands from various different branches.

[jugzilla]

The F35 program has a single huge flaw that no amount of money thrown at it will ever solve, too many roles were given to a single aircraft. You put in VTOL or STOL in particular, count it out for being a top performer in any role whatsover. Air superiority, Payloads, Turn rate, so much is given up on the engineering floor just to make the thing jump up and down like a show horse. A fleet of f-35s, would be akin to throwing out everything in your toolbox, and buying 6 "next-generation" swiss army knives.

[caervek]

The F-35 program is not very popular in Canada to say the least

It's unpopular in the UK too, due to politics our government decided to buy a load of them instead of our own Eurofighters lol >.>

[jugzilla]

It's unpopular in the UK too, due to politics our government decided to buy a load of them instead of our own Eurofighters lol >.>

I feel for ya, the Brits built their own super-carrier, but have no planes to put on it because the multinational F35 program just can't seem to work. The F-35 WILL be a HUGE improvement over the Harrier. Taxpayers all around the world will share in the glory for paying 100,000,000 a pop though.

[Flarelaine]

However Canada (or any country) intends to be a fully integrated part of NATO and fight offensively along side the US, it must subscribe to the highest standard, not the lowest, and that means being compatible with the latest approach. The US simply can't be the only country in the alliance able to destroy A2/AD by itself because it is the only country that has bought next generation weapons.

You know full well that procurement is political. We (Hungary) decided to buy a bunch of Gripens back around 2000 (they were running against the F-16 and the MiG-29). Since then, some Austrian aristocrat has been jailed for using bribes in lobbying for Gripen at the time... but the politicians? Back in power, stronger than ever.

[caervek]

I feel for ya, the Brits built their own super-carrier, but have no planes to put on it

The sad thing is, we had to choose between naval Typhoons and a STOBAR carrier that could also carry our future plane designs or F-35s and another generation of STOVL carriers >.<

[Kellhound]

I feel for ya, the Brits built their own super-carrier, but have no planes to put on it because the multinational F35 program just can't seem to work. The F-35 WILL be a HUGE improvement over the Harrier. Taxpayers all around the world will share in the glory for paying 100,000,000 a pop though.

The UK already has 14 F-35Bs, with operational status coming in 2018.

The Eurofighter is ~$95 million, the F-15K is ~$100 million.

- - - Updated - - -

The sad thing is, we had to choose between naval Typhoons and a STOBAR carrier that could also carry our future plane designs or F-35s and another generation of STOVL carriers >.<

The smart thing would have been to go CATOBAR but with F/A-18F/EA-18G and E-2Ds.

[jugzilla]

The UK already has 14 F-35Bs, with operational status coming in 2018.

The Eurofighter is ~$95 million, the F-15K is ~$100 million.

I would like to believe you, but I cannot find anything on the internet to backup the claim that F-35B's have been delivered. Please...understand I am on your side.

[Purpleisbetter]

The F35 program has a single huge flaw that no amount of money thrown at it will ever solve, too many roles were given to a single aircraft. You put in VTOL or STOL in particular, count it out for being a top performer in any role whatsover. Air superiority, Payloads, Turn rate, so much is given up on the engineering floor just to make the thing jump up and down like a show horse. A fleet of f-35s, would be akin to throwing out everything in your toolbox, and buying 6 "next-generation" swiss army knives.

holy shit the ignorance.

[jugzilla]

holy shit the ignorance.

Physics is a bitch.

[Kellhound]

I would like to believe you, but I cannot find anything on the internet to backup the claim that F-35B's have been delivered. Please...understand I am on your side.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Squadron.html

[Skroe]

You know full well that procurement is political. We (Hungary) decided to buy a bunch of Gripens back around 2000 (they were running against the F-16 and the MiG-29). Since then, some Austrian aristocrat has been jailed for using bribes in lobbying for Gripen at the time... but the politicians? Back in power, stronger than ever.

It's not. The F-35 program's international structure is a function of history.

The F-16 was originally the US's lightweight fighter (it's strike role was a later evolution) that built upon F-15 technologies from a few years prior along with a lot of new tech. The F-16 originally was never going to be exported (or at least, until later) to replace allies 1950s and 1960s era fighters. The original replacement was the F-21 Tigershark, basically a super modernized F-5. Reagan became President, and allowed export of the F-16, which was produced in the thousands to US allies around the world.

With a highly aero dynamic airframe, single engine, simple design, and very broad strike kit, the F-16 became the extremely economical platform of choice for dozens of countries. It could fulfill a variety of roles at low cost and high reliability. Whereas the US could afford to fly many different types of specialized air-frames, for smaller countries with smaller tax bases, the F-16 could do a lot of different jobs.

But there was a side effect of it's popularity: a lot of them were bought all at once. At one point, 40 were being produced per month. This means a lot of them are aging out all at once and need a replacement.

The F-35, unlike the F-16, was designed from the get go to be the logical F-16 upgrade for ALL F-16 users essentially, since all their F-16 fleets need to go. The F-35 in most ways reflects how the F-16 was actually used rather than it's original "lightweight fighter design".

But the broad-based upgrade, for both the US services for the F/A-18C, the F-16, the AV-8B and others, and international users, was from design, a core intent of the program. If countries didn't want to join in the F-35, that's their prerogative, but the F-35, in most ways, looks what you'd expect it to.

[caervek]

The smart thing would have been to go CATOBAR but with F/A-18F/EA-18G and E-2Ds.

Well, if by smart you mean waste of money :P

That's still buying foreign planes instead of domestic, and there would be no point buying all those additional aircraft when the Typhoon outclasses the F/A-18 anyway, the carriers will have their own AEW aircraft and if the Typhoons would be going in somewhere where electronic warfare aircraft are called for then Tornados would also be stationed in the area.

[Kellhound]

Well, if by smart you mean waste of money :P

That's still buying foreign planes instead of domestic, and there would be no point buying all those additional aircraft when the Typhoon outclasses the F/A-18 anyway, the carriers will have their own AEW aircraft and if the Typhoons would be going in somewhere where electronic warfare aircraft are called for then Tornados would also be stationed in the area.

Hardly a waste, the F/A-18F is a mature ready to use aircraft while a naval Typhoon would have to be developed and paid for with a small number of aircraft purchased. CATOBAR may be more expensive but it is massively more effective. Also, the performance would drop if the Typhoon was redesigned for carrier ops. The E-2D is the most advanced carrier AEW aircraft, and if it a carrier operation there will be little to no Tornado support.

[jugzilla]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Squadron.html

Yeah, that's an airshow, and nothing do with deliveries. The Brit's were promised an f-35 at the previous airshow and we couldn't get the plane over there in 2015. Sometimes it seems we want to prove this diaper can simply fly to our allies airbases, because that's been a stretch. This aircraft will be AMAZING given the bad ideas behind it, in terms to a replacement of the AV8. Better keep them f-16s running though.

Hardly a waste, the F/A-18F is a mature ready to use aircraft while a naval Typhoon would have to be developed and paid for with a small number of aircraft purchased. CATOBAR may be more expensive but it is massively more effective. Also, the performance would drop if the Typhoon was redesigned for carrier ops. The E-2D is the most advanced carrier AEW aircraft, and if it a carrier operation there will be little to no Tornado support.

Agreed 100% F/A-18F is a better choice for our allies. And they dont have to wait another 15 years for it to work.