JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Fri May 29, 2009 8:34 am

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...urp-f-35-for-canadian-fighter.html

Quote:
Both challengers unveiled the outlines of a new push to respectively market the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Typhoon to Ottawa as replacements for the Canadian air force's Boeing CF-18 (F/A-18A/B) Hornets by the end of the next decade.

As a member of the nine-nation Joint Strike Fighter programme since 2002, Lockheed executives have described Canada as a likely buyer for up to 80 F-35s, although the Department of National Defence has released a revised requirement for 65 jets.

Will the recent Australian decision to go with the F-35 make a difference? While single engine jets have proven to be reliable, Canada does have a whole lot of nothing to patrol. 2 engines were considered better than one in the decision to buy the F-18.
What the...?
 
Jackonicko
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:47 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Fri May 29, 2009 9:17 am

It depends what Canada wants to do.

If the job is to do exactly what the CF188s do now, then the Super Hornet isn't a bad choice.

If the air-to-air role has expanded, or is more emphasised, or if CAF pilots are to have an aircraft that will return a decent exchange ratio against the most advanced threat types, or if there is an aspiration for greater industrial participation and/or stimulus, or if the aircraft is to serve for an extended period, then Typhoon is a better choice.

Only if the Canadians want to do 'first day of the war', 'kick down the door' missions that absolutely necessitate stealth does the F-35 represent a better bet. It's likely to be the most expensive option, and will give the Canadians less freedom of action and autonomy than the other choices (though the other side of the same coin is that it is perhaps the best choice for interoperability if Canada wants its forces to be completely integrated into a US led and US dominated coalition), and is a less useful tool for the air defence role as practised by the CAF.

Saab seem to think that Gripen is "in with a shout", too.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Fri May 29, 2009 9:53 am

I think it would be a horrible idea to buy into the F35 program in the next two decades unless you absolutely have to. I'm still waiting for a "modern" fighter from the west that didn't enter into service as a complete waste of money... Let the USAF foot the bill to take the early usless piles of junk shoveled out to show they are "on time" and then when the 2nd or 3rd generation of the plane hits, then buy it. You know, when they figure out how to keep the frame in one piece. It isn't a hanger queen with buggy useless software and badly designed electronics. When the engine matures and meets some reasonable level of quality... etc.

Superhornets could be cheap ways to get some frames till the good F35 hit the market, or the gripen is also a good choice though given the ties with the US I'd place it lower than I would a nation that DOESN'T share boarders and coastlines. However, I wonder if Boeing could just crank out a few more plain hornets on the cheap to extend the current canadian fleets life. I guess I don't see that they have a huge need for upgrading to the superhornet given how unlikely they will be using it for heavy ground strikes and the like. I absolutely don't see the typhoon having a chance. Its not cheap, its not "local", and frankly its still unproven.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 1):
and will give the Canadians less freedom of action and autonomy than the other choices (though the other side of the same coin is that it is perhaps the best choice for interoperability if Canada wants its forces to be completely integrated into a US led and US dominated coalition), and is a less useful tool for the air defence role as practised by the CAF.

Might check into seeing if they have pills for paranoid tendancies. If they buy a Saab, they don't have to join the great scandinavian empire and bow before thier new nordic lords. Your assumption that a product from south of thier boarder would make them the lapdog of the US is very.... er... yah. Ask Iran if they feel like they have to call up the US government for some groveling before thier masters every time they want to use thier american planes or american missiles.
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Fri May 29, 2009 10:42 am



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 2):
I think it would be a horrible idea to buy into the F35 program in the next two decades unless you absolutely have to. I'm still waiting for a "modern" fighter from the west that didn't enter into service as a complete waste of money... Let the USAF foot the bill to take the early usless piles of junk shoveled out to show they are "on time" and then when the 2nd or 3rd generation of the plane hits, then buy it. You know, when they figure out how to keep the frame in one piece. It isn't a hanger queen with buggy useless software and badly designed electronics. When the engine matures and meets some reasonable level of quality... etc.

I tend to agree. Not only that, the final price tag has yet to be determined and it's probably going to be pretty close to that white elephant called the F-22.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Fri May 29, 2009 1:25 pm

The Super Hornet is a good acft not great. Why would a country without acft carriers buy a SH, you are buying alot of capability that will not used or needed =dead weight. Plus the SH has a hard time getting past Mach 1 slicked down with external stores forget about it.The F-18G is really slow but faster than the EA-6B. Most ex F-14 drivers lament how much speed they don't have anymore. The F-18A-D is faster and a better dogfighter. Speed is life. I believe our neighbors would be better served with the new derivative of the F-15 that Boeing just rolled out or the Eurofighter or the newest block F-16 that Israel,Oman and Poland bought. Unless Canada decides to get in war with US those sould be sufficient.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Fri May 29, 2009 2:25 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 4):
I believe our neighbors would be better served with the new derivative of the F-15 that Boeing just rolled out

Best fit for our mission profile IMHO. We usually get stuck playing 'peace keeper' (witness Afghanistan). A multi-role aircraft is the best fit for those situations. The new F15 provides additional (theoretically) protection from radar guided missiles while having the ability to make a mess of ground targets.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Fri May 29, 2009 2:26 pm

I still say LM dropped the ball big time from the marketing perspective with the JSF. They should have prolonged it's inception by 5 to 10 years so as not to take sales away from their F-22 as well as what should have been a better offer in F-16E/F just as the Hornet went to the Super Hornet E/F models.

Anyways, with those new F414 uprated thrust engines, AESA powered F/A-18F's are all the Canucks need per their current (and foreseeable future) mission requirements.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Sat May 30, 2009 12:41 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
Anyways, with those new F414 uprated thrust engines, AESA powered F/A-18F's are all the Canucks need per their current (and foreseeable future) mission requirements.

Not knocking the Super Hornet but I'm inclined to believe the Canadians would do well to go with the Typhoon. Better overall performance, good air-to-ground capability, very manueverable and could be bought at a reasonable cost (given Canada can probably afford them anyway). F-35 may be more than the Canadians need and Super Hornet is past technology, if you really think about it.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5371
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Sat May 30, 2009 12:48 am



Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 5):
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 4):
I believe our neighbors would be better served with the new derivative of the F-15 that Boeing just rolled out

Best fit for our mission profile IMHO. We usually get stuck playing 'peace keeper' (witness Afghanistan). A multi-role aircraft is the best fit for those situations. The new F15 provides additional (theoretically) protection from radar guided missiles while having the ability to make a mess of ground targets.

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/photos/f-15se/images/28535/boeing-f-15se.jpg
http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace...5se/images/28535/boeing-f-15se.jpg

While I fully agree with that view, the uncertainty of the Silent Eagle actually going into full production without a parallel commitment from the USAF and maybe a sizeable order from Japan, puts a damper on this option. Being the only plausible export customers along with South Korea and Singapore - their insistence on "stealth" and 5th Gen technology doesn't inspire much confidence. Boeing pitting the Super Bug for the Canadian requirement only makes matters worse, as it signals the company's doubt about the SE's viability, and their unwillingness to undermine the F/A-18's chances.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Sat May 30, 2009 6:07 am

I'm a big fan of the F-15 in general but the Silent Eagle will still cost 100 mil or more per copy. For that price, Canada can get something more than a refurb.
What the...?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Sun May 31, 2009 7:05 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
They should have prolonged it's inception by 5 to 10 years so as not to take sales away from their F-22 as well as what should have been a better offer in F-16E/F just as the Hornet went to the Super Hornet E/F models.

And here I was thinking that the a/c were being developed because the US Air Force needed them  Smile
The F35 / F22 a/c are in the same league as the F16 / F22 one is more air superiority and the other a multi-role a/c, the only reason you have that opinion is because the OEM's have gone overboard in the development cost of the a/c. F15, F16 and F18 were all in production at the same time while the B2 was developed, mayber the OEM's need to rehire the folks who were around when those were done, at least the did not attempt to delay production for additional sales.

As for Canada, the silent Eagle will probably be the best fit, so what if it is a rehash of the F15, it is the most economical a/c they can obtain, that is unless the OEM want to shaft the customer, if the give Canada a deal and deliver on time, what would that do for the other potential buyers? Typhoon is now going through some issues with the UK and Germany for funding for the latest batch, which would Canada receive, the older or newer tranche?
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:35 am



Quoting Par13del (Reply 10):
As for Canada, the silent Eagle will probably be the best fit, so what if it is a rehash of the F15, it is the most economical a/c they can obtain, that is unless the OEM want to shaft the customer, if the give Canada a deal and deliver on time, what would that do for the other potential buyers? Typhoon is now going through some issues with the UK and Germany for funding for the latest batch, which would Canada receive, the older or newer tranche?

Aside from Strike Eagle, though, all Eagle variants are basically counter air, and Canada wants/needs a more multi-role a/c, as we can't afford dedicated units of AtA and AtG. Hence our participation in the JSF program. But from Tranche 2 onwards, Typhoon has an increasing AtG capability, even more in Tranche 3A/B.

From that perspective I think the Typhoon makes some sense, and given the apparent reluctance of Germany and the UK to proceed with all or at least some of Tranche 3, there may be an opening to negotiate a favourable deal.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:28 pm



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 11):
Aside from Strike Eagle, though, all Eagle variants are basically counter air, and Canada wants/needs a more multi-role a/c, as we can't afford dedicated units of AtA and AtG. Hence our participation in the JSF program. But from Tranche 2 onwards, Typhoon has an increasing AtG capability, even more in Tranche 3A/B.

The new version of the F15 can switch between its "mild stealth" mode to ground attack in a couple of hours with the removal of the conformal fuel tanks and install of external hardpoints. It can do this on the flight line of a forward base, does not require high level attention for the switch.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5371
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:39 am



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 9):
I'm a big fan of the F-15 in general but the Silent Eagle will still cost 100 mil or more per copy. For that price, Canada can get something more than a refurb.

Even if Boeing makes good on its claim of "possibly" slashing down the SE's price, and completing its development (presumably) not much later than the F-35? And the scope described certainly suggests more than just a refurb.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-costs-for-100-million-f-15se.html

Quote:
"Boeing is seeking risk-sharing partners to develop a new version of the F-15E Strike Eagle that adds stealth characteristics and a new electronic warfare suite to the multi-role fighter.

The risk-sharing deals would shorten the timeline to develop the renamed F-15 Silent Eagle, which possibly would lower its estimated $100 million cost, Chris Chadwick, president of the military aircraft division, said on 3 June at a media roundtable hosted by Boeing."
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
steman
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:48 am

I would say that the F/A-18E/F is a reasonable option for Canada, considering how their Air Force has been equipped in the past 25 years.
Isn´t it a better platform than the F-18C/D? Ok, it´s not as fast and powerful as a Tomcat or an F-15, nor as manouvrable as a Typhoon or a Raptor, but still, it´s the top fighter of the US Navy, it can´t be that bad.

If the Hornet has been good through the ´80s and ´90 and early 2000s (with all its shortcomings), why wouldn´t the Super Hornet be good now, in a time when no Soviet nuclear bombers are threatening to enter
Canadian airspace and no heavy armored armies are at the border of Western Europe, ready to invade?

30 to 50 Super Hornets, along with the latest upgraded Hornets would do a good job till
the F-35 gets in.
Afterall, I believe that Canada will go for the F-35 having invested already some funds in the development fase.
I am actually no fan of the F-35 and I think that, of all the nations that invested in it, Italy has the best role for it, having to replace a mediocre light weight attack aircraft like the AMX and a good albeit old strike aircraft like the Tornado. The same could be said for the STOVL variant intended to replace the Harrier fleets of US Marines, RAF/RN and Italian Navy.
But in my opinion, the F-35 is not going to be a good air defence fighter like the Typhoon, the French Rafale or the Russian Flankers.
So, Canada might have to think what they need.
A good air defence fighter to keep its airspace safe? Then relying only on the Lightning II might be a mistake.
A multirole fighter with good air-to-ground and some air-to-air capability? Then the F-35 is a good buy.
You need both? Then no other choice than a mixed fleet.


Ciao

Stefano
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:48 am

There was a time when Canada would develop her own military aircraft.

Could you picture a tank-buster based on the old CF-100 frame?

Or the CF-105 re-made as a F-111 style strike fighter?

Or even something completely new.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2310
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:03 pm



Quoting L-188 (Reply 15):

Or the CF-105 re-made as a F-111 style strike fighter?

Tease.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 15):
There was a time when Canada would develop her own military aircraft.

Yep  Sad  ashamed   banghead  I could go waaaaay off topic here and rant a very long rant about what could have been. Hopefully the BBD folks will have some success with the C Series and restore at least a little bit of the Canadian aerospace industry that has been gutted by government BS and corporate greed.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
Oroka
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:23 pm



Quoting Steman (Reply 14):
But in my opinion, the F-35 is not going to be a good air defence fighter like the Typhoon, the French Rafale or the Russian Flankers.

The CF-18 was never a good air defense fighter, the Hornet was designed as a light fighter with ground attack capacity to be flung off a carrier, leaving the air defense to the F-14. All we have used the CF-18 for is bomb runs in a few conflicts and patrols. Canada really relies on NORAD for real air defense. Im not dissing the CF-18, I love the plane, many fond memories, but tactically, it is what everyone says it is... Jack of all Trades, master of none.


The CAF needs to get its head out of the cold war and into the modern ages. Right now, we need long range patrols and a small reactionary force. A fleet of UAVs could handle the sovereignty patrols, and a few squadrons of F-35s for our international obligations. The F-35 would be atleast as good as the CF-18, so our air-to-air 'capability' is intact. What Canada would gain from the F-35 is some stealth, but more importantly a REAL ability to interact with international forces.
 
steman
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:29 pm



Quoting Oroka (Reply 17):
The CAF needs to get its head out of the cold war and into the modern ages. Right now, we need long range patrols and a small reactionary force. A fleet of UAVs could handle the sovereignty patrols, and a few squadrons of F-35s for our international obligations. The F-35 would be atleast as good as the CF-18, so our air-to-air 'capability' is intact. What Canada would gain from the F-35 is some stealth, but more importantly a REAL ability to interact with international forces.

Doesn´t look like Canada had a good Cold War air defence then.
Relying on Norad, once the F-101 were retired, meant relying on USAF units in Alaska and Island?

Agree with you though that the F-35 will be a good solution for today´s needs and for Canada´s position in international politics. After all air defence doesn´t seem to be of primary importance now for Ottawa. It´s a similar situation to many European Countries where the threat is not represented anymore by hordes of Soviet fighters and bombers.

Ciao

Stefano
 
Oroka
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Mon Jun 08, 2009 3:33 am

Yup, that is about right, and IMO once the CF-105 got canned, our air defense capabilities were just extensions of the USAF (second hand F-101s, F-104s, and Bomarc missles).

But really, Canada doesn't need a big force, just a good detection system (thus the UAVs). Anything coming over the pole would be seen hours away, and anything in Canada of tactical value other than CFB Cold Lake is withing 300km of the US border, leaving more than enough time for the USAF to save our asses (quite sad really, isn't it?). But an attack coming over the pole or even reaching North America is quite unlikely.

Today, our biggest concern is maintaining patrols of our territorial waters to the north from those commie bast... Russian friends, and illegal aliens coming across the Pacific (and maybe the odd loose foot). F-35s would be a bit overkill for such tasks. UAVs could even replace the CP-140s for our east coast patrols. What can a manned surveillance aircraft do, that a UAV couldn't? I would rather have a unmanned aircraft up north in the event of a engine failure. Thousands of miles from anything is not a good place to have to ditch a plane (not that anywhere is a good place to ditch a plane).
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2535
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:41 am



Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
Yup, that is about right, and IMO once the CF-105 got canned, our air defense capabilities were just extensions of the USAF (second hand F-101s, F-104s, and Bomarc missles).

The threat situation changed. No longer was there the threat of hordes of Soviet bombers; that threat moved to Soviet ICBM's. The "bomber gap" suddenly no longer existed and the ICBM was the main, overriding threat. The CF-105 could do nothing about those.

The CF-105 was competing with other military projects for funding. Had any government allowed the CF-105 project to continue, it would have [b][i]disarmed[b/][i/] Canada. The project was opposed by, inter alia, the Treasury, the Naval Staff, the General Staff and the majority of the Air Staff - for good reasons.

With the launch of Sputnik, governments around the world were re-assessing their fighter jet needs and requirements. Canada especially could not afford to continue with a project that may or may not be even useful in a few years. The entirety of the Avro Arrow imbroglio was financial: building and flying the Arrow would have destroyed the Canadian Forces unless unconscionably huge increases were made to the defence budget – in the teeth of a major recession!

It was a good airplane, probably even a very good airplane but not one that could be sold to anyone else. It would have been a HUGE white elephant. The government made the politically and militarily correct decision. Canada no longer needed the Arrow; Canada could not afford the Arrow; the Arrow met the fate it deserved: the scrap heap.

The funding that was supposed to go to the CF-105 was instead diverted to recapitalize the Army and Navy, as both services needed new equipment. The Navy got the new destroyers it needed. The Army got their new tanks and trucks.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
UAVs could even replace the CP-140s for our east coast patrols. What can a manned surveillance aircraft do, that a UAV couldn't?

There are situations where on the spot human problem solving and timing is crucial. Furthermore, a manned presence brings a whole new element in sovereignty; they know we see them, and they can see us. No one is going to do anything stupid in this situation.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2535
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Mon Jun 08, 2009 5:55 am



Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
2 engines were considered better than one in the decision to buy the F-18.

The original premise for purchasing the F/A-18 Hornet was that at the time, the F/A-18 Hornet had better overall capability (unlike the F-16 at the time, the Hornet could use radar-guided missiles and was capable of dropping many types of air to ground ordinance other than dumb bombs) than the F-16 Falcon, which was up until that point, still a point defence fighter. Furthermore, it was expected that the F/A-18 Hornet would get more export orders (Canada was the first foreign customer of the Hornet). This obviously didn't pan out.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:54 am



Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
The CF-105 was competing with other military projects for funding. Had any government allowed the CF-105 project to continue, it would have [b][i]disarmed[b/][i/] Canada. The project was opposed by, inter alia, the Treasury, the Naval Staff, the General Staff and the majority of the Air Staff - for good reasons.

With the launch of Sputnik, governments around the world were re-assessing their fighter jet needs and requirements. Canada especially could not afford to continue with a project that may or may not be even useful in a few years. The entirety of the Avro Arrow imbroglio was financial: building and flying the Arrow would have destroyed the Canadian Forces unless unconscionably huge increases were made to the defence budget – in the teeth of a major recession!

It was a good airplane, probably even a very good airplane but not one that could be sold to anyone else. It would have been a HUGE white elephant. The government made the politically and militarily correct decision. Canada no longer needed the Arrow; Canada could not afford the Arrow; the Arrow met the fate it deserved: the scrap heap.

Overall agree with the thrust of your argument, although I point out that 50 years after the Arrow was cancelled, we're still getting probed by "Bear" variants in both the Arctic and the East Coast.

Peter Zuring's book, "The Arrow Scrapbook" does hint that the US offered to fund at least some of the initial production run, and also that the Luftwaffe at least had a sniff. But basically it was going to be a domestic-only program had it gone ahead -- and it was still quite a ways from operational service. I would hazard that the production run for RCAF use would have been on the order of 100 or so.

Given the enormous cost growth in the Arrow program, the sensible thing to do was to shut it down, and redeploy defense dollars where they might do more good. Diefenbaker still gets a lot of criticism for the decision, but had Pearson been the PM, he would have done the same thing.

Now, as for the Jetliner, that was truly a blunder.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
steman
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:42 am

Is it true that Canada at one time wanted to get the A-7 for its ground attack units but opted instead for the F-5 because it looked like the USAF would get the F-5E for the Air National Guard?
Only that the ANG got early models F-16 instead and the CAF had to do with the less capable F-5?

And what was the story behind the acquisition of F-101B?
If I´m not wrong this model only served shortly with the USAF in the air defence role, being superseded by the F-106A.

Ciao

Stefano
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Mon Jun 08, 2009 9:00 am



Quoting Steman (Reply 23):
Is it true that Canada at one time wanted to get the A-7 for its ground attack units but opted instead for the F-5 because it looked like the USAF would get the F-5E for the Air National Guard?
Only that the ANG got early models F-16 instead and the CAF had to do with the less capable F-5?

And what was the story behind the acquisition of F-101B?
If I´m not wrong this model only served shortly with the USAF in the air defence role, being superseded by the F-106A.

Don't know about the A-7 angle, although that's interesting.

The F-101B was a stop-gap acquired after the Arrow was cancelled, I believe something like about 75 were taken in. Ironically, the F-101B was assessed as part of the AIR 7-3 specification that led to the Arrow program, and was rejected as not meeting the requirement. I agree the F-101B didn't last long in the US inventory, but Canada had a tradition of twin-engined interceptors (i.e., CF-100) for patrols over remote regions, and I think that's why the F-106 was not considered.

The 'stop-gap' soldiered on until the 80s when the CF-18 entered service, b.t.w.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:39 am

The Arrow was canned as were thousands of jobs and the Canadian aerospace industry.

Canada got the f-101, f-5's and the Bomarc missile...and not exactly for free. The Bomarcs the Canadian government originally ordered were the nuke version...which were eventually disarmed.

All in all, a bad trade. Even if the Arrow would have ultimately cost more in absolute dollars, (which has never been proven), the loss of an entire industry and the resultant brain drain was devastating.

Still, water under the bridge, eh...?
What the...?
 
Oroka
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:49 am



Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
There are situations where on the spot human problem solving and timing is crucial. Furthermore, a manned presence brings a whole new element in sovereignty; they know we see them, and they can see us. No one is going to do anything stupid in this situation.

A UAV capable of long range northern patrols are not going to be dinky little units. There is no reason a UAV couldnt do every job the CP-140 does. You could have 1 flight crew monitoring 5 UAVs, when something interesting is detected (heat signature, radar contact, movement), that UAV asks for attention. I am pretty sure if someone sees a UAV circling above, they know they have been detected and will mind their manners. A CP-140 isnt going to be throwing grenades at Russian ships, all it can do is contact it via radio and call in a fighter escort.

F-35s (and CF-18s) are pointless for northern patrols, and we dont have enough CP-140s to "...search out illegal fishing, immigration, drug trafficking and polluting along the coastline, as well as violations of Canadian territorial sovereignty above and below the ocean’s surface." (quote from the CAF page on the CP-140). Gotta love the 'as well as' part, as if it is a secondary thought.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2535
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:56 am



Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 25):
The Arrow was canned as were thousands of jobs and the Canadian aerospace industry.

Canada got the f-101, f-5's and the Bomarc missile...and not exactly for free. The Bomarcs the Canadian government originally ordered were the nuke version...which were eventually disarmed.

All in all, a bad trade. Even if the Arrow would have ultimately cost more in absolute dollars, (which has never been proven), the loss of an entire industry and the resultant brain drain was devastating.

Still, water under the bridge, eh...?

There were lots of different reasons that conspired to kill the Arrow program, everything from technical challenges with the missiles and fire control system, ever escalating unit cost, changing military environment (ICBM's were becoming the obvious threat, so there would be no Soviet bomber armadas to shoot down) and national pride when approaching other nations as potential customers ("Not invented here, I'm afraid"). Like dinosaurs, the CF-105 was very specialized for it's defence niche, so when the environment changed, it could not adapt and survive.

We never had much in the way of domestic aviation industry at the time. A lot of good ideas came together in one (British) company's Canadian plant. But, in terms of military aircraft, we were, and still are a parts and component suppler - the AVRO CF-100 Canuck being the notable exception, the one that proves the rule, perhaps? AV Roe expanded too far, too fast into too many sectors in too many places and when the Arrow project was cancelled the company collapsed because it was too fragile. If today, Lockheed Martin were to collapse due to cancellation of the VH-71 project, then Lockheed Martin was too fragile a company to survive anyways.

Our civilian aviation industry is in fairly decent shape, - as healthy as its competitors, anyway. This report, in Fig. 6-16 indicates that what we have is extremely competitive and has many good prospects in the future.

Now was the government of the day a mite brutal in ending the project? Yes, but there was overriding concerns regarding the Soviets getting their grubby mittens on the plans (which proved in the end to be true; the Soviets had penetrated into the project). Could the government have gone in a different direction and kept that expertise? Yes, but what?

Diefenbaker was the first PM to have to face up to declining Canadian support for military spending which coincided with huge increases in the rate of defence product related inflation – which meant that new/replacement weapon systems cost more and more and more, increasing faster than capabilities (and, consequently, lower quantities required). He cancelled the Arrow at the insistence of his senior bureaucrats, admirals, generals and the majority of his air marshals. The aircraft was good but not great and there was no market, beyond Canada, for it – it was on track to destroy military by sucking all the money away from all other projects. He introduced an 'austerity programme' across government which had the primary aim of finding money for military's budgets. The Pearson/Hellyer integration/unification debacle was initiated because they, too, wanted to find ways to give military what the admirals, generals and air marshals said they needed from within the current budget because Canadians would not support increased defence spending – new social programmes were top of the national priority list, a list created by those who survived the Great Depression and fought World War II.
 
JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:45 am



Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
There were lots of different reasons that conspired to kill the Arrow program, everything from technical challenges with the missiles and fire control system, ever escalating unit cost, changing military environment (ICBM's were becoming the obvious threat, so there would be no Soviet bomber armadas to shoot down) and national pride when approaching other nations as potential customers ("Not invented here, I'm afraid"). Like dinosaurs, the CF-105 was very specialized for it's defence niche, so when the environment changed, it could not adapt and survive.

And Canada ended up with an interceptor, (the CF-101, which nobody else wanted), good for little else but bomber interception to be later supplanted by the CF-104, which was good for little else than bomber interception), a nuclear armed missile, (which nobody else wanted), and the f-5, which is a pretty good supersonic trainer.

Except for the F-5, each of those other platforms was no less specialized than the Arrow.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 27):
Diefenbaker was the first PM to have to face up to declining Canadian support for military spending which coincided with huge increases in the rate of defence product related inflation – which meant that new/replacement weapon systems cost more and more and more, increasing faster than capabilities (and, consequently, lower quantities required). He cancelled the Arrow at the insistence of his senior bureaucrats, admirals, generals and the majority of his air marshals. The aircraft was good but not great and there was no market, beyond Canada, for it – it was on track to destroy military by sucking all the money away from all other projects. He introduced an 'austerity programme' across government which had the primary aim of finding money for military's budgets. The Pearson/Hellyer integration/unification debacle was initiated because they, too, wanted to find ways to give military what the admirals, generals and air marshals said they needed from within the current budget because Canadians would not support increased defence spending – new social programmes were top of the national priority list, a list created by those who survived the Great Depression and fought World War II.

In the end, it cost Canada at least as much, if not more for all of the systems which weren't any more capable than the Arrow...with the added consequence of 50,000 people being put out of work overnight.

Any difference in the cost of the Arrow and the American planes purchased was negligible. It's not like all that hardware was given to Canada. It came out of the same coffers that would have paid for the Arrow...and that stuff wasn't cheap.

The American military didn't want Arrow and since dief signed Canada on to be subjugated by NORAD, and the US assured Pearkes that they had plenty of planes, no worries, Canada didn't need the Arrow.

Dief and the gang got suckered. It was a bad deal.
What the...?
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:28 am



Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 28):
And Canada ended up with an interceptor, (the CF-101, which nobody else wanted), good for little else but bomber interception to be later supplanted by the CF-104, which was good for little else than bomber interception), a nuclear armed missile, (which nobody else wanted), and the f-5, which is a pretty good supersonic trainer.

The CF-104 was a strike a/c only, never used as an interceptor.

Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 28):
Any difference in the cost of the Arrow and the American planes purchased was negligible. It's not like all that hardware was given to Canada. It came out of the same coffers that would have paid for the Arrow...and that stuff wasn't cheap.

The American military didn't want Arrow and since dief signed Canada on to be subjugated by NORAD, and the US assured Pearkes that they had plenty of planes, no worries, Canada didn't need the Arrow.

Dief and the gang got suckered. It was a bad deal.

I'd disagree. IIRC the Arrow THEN was projected to cost something like $8M per (these are 1959 dollars). That was w/o the Astra fire control system which was one of the main cost inflation spiral drivers. The Voodoo was nowhere near that level of cost -- admittedly probably a much less capable a/c.

Many in the US military were very interested in the Arrow, at least on a technical level, but it would never have Stars and Stripes on it due to the NIH factor (Not Invented Here) and the F-106 Delta Dart was already starting to enter service, to be followed by the very capable F-4 Phantom.

Given the amount of $$$ Canada was prepared to spend on defense at the time, the several competing requirements amongst the various services, something had to give, and Arrow was it, especially considering there was no prospect of Arrow entering squadron service anytime soon.

Pearson would have made the same call if he had been in the big chair at the time.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
JoeCanuck
Topic Author
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Tue Jun 09, 2009 11:21 am

The voodoo was a plane nobody wanted...it was leftovers that the US was glad to get rid of. The starfighter was a crap strike fighter, unable to carry a decent load and half of them crashed. The bomarc didn't come free either. Sure they were cheaper...they weren't even good enough to be put into service for any length of time in the US. Canada got leftovers from the bargain bin.

So in exchange for killing the arrow, and a burgeoning industry, we got weapons systems nobody else wanted or was willing to pay for, which we were forced to keep in service long after they were obsolete because they turned out to be a waste of money, Canada couldn't afford to replace them.

Doesn't sound like a great deal to me. Regardless, it's been dead for 50 years and ain't coming back.
What the...?
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:18 pm



Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 30):
The voodoo was a plane nobody wanted...it was leftovers that the US was glad to get rid of. The starfighter was a crap strike fighter, unable to carry a decent load and half of them crashed. The bomarc didn't come free either. Sure they were cheaper...they weren't even good enough to be put into service for any length of time in the US. Canada got leftovers from the bargain bin.

So in exchange for killing the arrow, and a burgeoning industry, we got weapons systems nobody else wanted or was willing to pay for, which we were forced to keep in service long after they were obsolete because they turned out to be a waste of money, Canada couldn't afford to replace them.

I would not characterise the Starfighter as a crap strike a/c. It could carry the requisite nuclear package into WarPac country and get out due to its' superior speed -- the bomb-tossing technique was pretty wild, but practiced diligently. Yes, many were lost, but the a/c was single-engined and operating in a very unforgiving environment -- but not anywhere near half went down. Bomarc ? POS, very correct.

As for killing Arrow and a burgeoning industry, the Arrow WAS the industry. There was really not much else going on. CF-100 upgrades, the CC-106/CL-44/Argus program, totalled about 110-115 frames. That was it.

In an earlier post, I alluded to the decision to shutdown the Jetliner program as being more of a loss than the Arrow, and I stand by that. In 1952 the Jetliner had LOIs in hand from Northeast and TWA. TCA would have come around if the engine situation could have been corrected. Don't forget, the Jetliner spec was for 2 AS Sapphires, but then the UK government embargoed the engines and offered RR Derwents (centrifugal gas-guzzlers, 4 needed vs 2 Sapphires) instead. That really hooped the DOC for the Jetliner, as well as range. If the government had stood its' ground on the Jetliner and looked for alternatives like the Orenda, or perhaps an American equivalent, a commercial endeavour could have laid the foundation of a much more robust aviation industry than the Arrow ever would have created. Stretched/improved variants, and new programs would likely have followed. Had Jetliner gone into service, for example, Caravelle might never have happened.

But, as you say, it was 50+ years ago now.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:48 pm



Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 31):
Yes, many were lost, but the a/c was single-engined and operating in a very unforgiving environment -- but not anywhere near half went down.

The Germans lost 292 out of 916 (32%). Italy lost something like 38%. Belgium 37%. Canada lost 110 out of 238, for a whopping 46% loss rate.

While those number are not quite half (and not all that much higher than other aircraft of the era), it's near enough for many of the operators.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:55 pm



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 32):
The Germans lost 292 out of 916 (32%). Italy lost something like 38%. Belgium 37%. Canada lost 110 out of 238, for a whopping 46% loss rate.

While those number are not quite half (and not all that much higher than other aircraft of the era), it's near enough for many of the operators.

Germans often referred to the Starfighter as "The Widowmaker" -- the a/c had a bad problem with spins coupled to engine failure. But as you point out, many other a/c of the era had similar accident rates. They too were referred to as "Widowmakers". But realistically, operate a single-engined a/c long enough, you'll start to lose them.

Which is why two engines are better.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2535
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Wed Jun 10, 2009 8:45 am



Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 28):
And Canada ended up with an interceptor, (the CF-101, which nobody else wanted), good for little else but bomber interception to be later supplanted by the CF-104, which was good for little else than bomber interception), a nuclear armed missile, (which nobody else wanted), and the f-5, which is a pretty good supersonic trainer.

Except for the F-5, each of those other platforms was no less specialized than the Arrow.

The CF-100's were still obsolete and needed replacement. It was just that the USAF was able to make the F-101B's available to us by redeploying some of their fighters around in a few NORAD sectors that they were able to offer them to us for a very low price. We still needed something to intercept lone Soviet aircraft probing our airspace, and the F-101 did the trick, especially after SAGE came online.

Quoting Joecanuck (Reply 28):
In the end, it cost Canada at least as much, if not more for all of the systems which weren't any more capable than the Arrow...with the added consequence of 50,000 people being put out of work overnight.

Any difference in the cost of the Arrow and the American planes purchased was negligible. It's not like all that hardware was given to Canada. It came out of the same coffers that would have paid for the Arrow...and that stuff wasn't cheap.

The American military didn't want Arrow and since dief signed Canada on to be subjugated by NORAD, and the US assured Pearkes that they had plenty of planes, no worries, Canada didn't need the Arrow.

Dief and the gang got suckered. It was a bad deal.

The Arrow's per unit projected cost was 4 times that of the eventual replacement, the CF-101, and was double that of the F-106 Delta Dart. And the Arrow was not that much more capable than the Delta Dart, or even the F-4 Phantom II which took flight around the same time the Arrow did.

The government was put into a quandary; they could either continue with Arrow and cancel other military projects (leaving the Navy and the Army to become quickly ineffective), or it could cancel the Arrow, allow other military projects to continue, and move forward with NORAD and SAGE. Think about it: the threat environment has changed. No longer was the primary axis of attack was through Soviet bombers, it was through ICBM's. No interceptor aircraft in the world at the time and today can intercept a ICBM. Do you continue with projects that suddenly become questionable in terms of military value, or do you can it?

The government made the militarily and economically correct decision. It was a difficult decision politically, but it was a decision that had to be made. Around the world, many other governments cancelled projects that were very similar to the Arrow; the US cancelled the XF-103, the XF-108 Rapier, and almost cancelled the F-106 Delta Dart. The British canned nearly every single manned fighter in the same time period, save for the English Electric Lightning. The aviation industry in those nations survived these cancellations. A.V. Roe didn't, because of how fragile the company was.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 33):
Germans often referred to the Starfighter as "The Widowmaker" -- the a/c had a bad problem with spins coupled to engine failure. But as you point out, many other a/c of the era had similar accident rates. They too were referred to as "Widowmakers". But realistically, operate a single-engined a/c long enough, you'll start to lose them.

No, the majority of Starfighter losses was at low altitude... not surprising especially due to the type of missions they flew in NATO service, which was that of a low level tactical strike aircraft. Controlled flight into terrain was especially an issue, and many fighters of that era were not known to be easy aircraft to fly. Canadian losses were higher because of the environment; our F-104's were parked outside with no hangars and that had a bad effect on the various avionics inside the fighter. Everyone else got to park their Starfighters in a hangar... except for us...

Mind you, of all the 'Century' series fighters, the F-104 had an okay accident rate compared to many other types; in fact, the F-100 Super Sabre had the worst accident rate of all the 'Century' series fighters.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 33):
Which is why two engines are better.

Having twin engines does not mean that the aircraft is safer; for example, the majority of CF-18 crashes that involved engine failure involved situations where both engines failed due to a common cause (such as fuel starvation).

Interestingly, the F-16 has one of the best records for engine-related shutdowns in flight, despite it having only 1 engine. Also, one of the most reliable helicopters in the world for flight hours flown is the Bell 206 Jet Ranger (including military variants), which only has 1 engine.
 
CYQL
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:19 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:45 am

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...65-us-fighter-jets/article1595525/

Looks like the cabinet has made up their mind to buy the F-35.
 
TheCol
Posts: 1857
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 9:30 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:19 am

We can speculate and debate all we want, but we all know that we are going to see one of the following scenarios play out:

A. The Harper government sticks around long enough to buy a token, and strategically ineffective, force of F-35's.
B. The Liberals get elected and opt for the cheapest, and equally ineffective, force of Super Hornets.

Either way, we'll probably go back and forth until the current acquisition process turns into a bigger joke than the Maritime Helicopter Project.

At the end of the day it isn't the fault of the politicians. They only care about stuff that the rest of the country pays any mind to. Unfortunately, with the exception of a few thousand brave men and women willing to put it all on the line, this country doesn't have much of a spine left.
No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9072
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:44 am

Are the french sitting on their hands?

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:42 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
It was a good airplane, probably even a very good airplane but not one that could be sold to anyone else. It would have been a HUGE white elephant. The government made the politically and militarily correct decision. Canada no longer needed the Arrow; Canada could not afford the Arrow; the Arrow met the fate it deserved: the scrap heap.

My late father was a senior engineer at Avro and worked on the Arrow. And I watched it fly a few times, once up close and personal in flight prep on the flight line (my father snuck me in -- that couldn't happen today). So my emotional bias says killing it was a mistake. My head says it probably wasn't a mistake because of the cost factors involved. But what was a tragedy of epic proportions was the loss of the talent that built it -- that all went south (my father included -- ended up at GE's jet engine plant in Lynn). And a further loss was the Iroquois engine -- which at the time was also a world-beater and could have had applications well beyond the Arrow itself.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 31):
In an earlier post, I alluded to the decision to shutdown the Jetliner program as being more of a loss than the Arrow, and I stand by that.

I agree with you on that entirely. That airplane had a commercial future. How ironic that it was shut down so Avro could concentrate on churning out CF-100s and developing the CF-105. (Hanging on my office wall is a very large, framed b&w picture of the Arrow landing after first flight. I've also got some small bits and pieces hanging around -- all purloined by my father as he exited the plant.)
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 5371
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:17 am

From the link in Reply 35.....

Quote:
"But that hasn’t stopped the manufacturers of jets such as Boeing’s Super Hornet from trying to whip up a storm in Parliament and the defence community.

Lobbyists have been contacting journalists and parliamentarians in an attempt to put out the story that Canada could get new aircraft at a cheaper price, and with more Canadian content, by opening up tenders.

'An open competition to select Canada's next-generation fighter would enable Canada's government and military to obtain access to detailed Super Hornet performance data, enabling a thorough and accurate evaluation of its advanced, proven capabilities,' said Boeing spokeswoman Mary Brett in a statement."


Boeing not proposing their supposedly "4.5 Gen" Silent Eagle as an alternative above could suggest its hyped unveiling as nothing more than a red herring to entice current, foreign F-15 operators to stick with the type. As for the F-35, P&WC stands to gain with the powerplant, as well as other downstream Canadian industries, more or less comparatively, with a Boeing win.

[Edited 2010-06-08 18:28:58]
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
kl671
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:00 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:38 am

Quoting CYQL (Reply 35):
Looks like the cabinet has made up their mind to buy the F-35.

$9 Billion dollars to buy 65 aircraft that will protect Canada for the next 20 or 30 years compared to the $1 billion Canada is spending on security for the heads of states attending the G8/G20 summits in Huntsville and Toronto for three days in June.

Sounds like a bargain to me.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:21 pm

Quoting Steman (Reply 14):

If the Hornet has been good through the ´80s and ´90 and early 2000s (with all its shortcomings), why wouldn´t the Super Hornet be good now, in a time when no Soviet nuclear bombers are threatening to enter
Canadian airspace and no heavy armored armies are at the border of Western Europe, ready to invade?

30 to 50 Super Hornets, along with the latest upgraded Hornets would do a good job till
the F-35 gets in.
Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 22):
Overall agree with the thrust of your argument, although I point out that 50 years after the Arrow was cancelled, we're still getting probed by "Bear" variants in both the Arctic and the East Coast.

Correct, Russia has sent several Tu-95s on long range recon missions over the last few years to both Alaska and Canada (along with Japan and Guam, too).

The current CF-18, or F/A-18 C/D is not a real deterrant to these types of incursions.

If Canada were to buy the F/A-18E/F, Typhoon, Saab, or F-15SE, they will drop out of the F-35 program. They don't want or need an interium fighter/bomber, they need a new airplane. Canada has time to make this decision, as they will not need to begin replacing their current CF-18s for at least 10 years from now. If they want the F-15SE, or F-35, they will need to begin that program by about 2012, but for the Typhoon, Saab, or SH they have time to wait until about 2015.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11174
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:37 pm

Quoting Michlis (Reply 3):
Not only that, the final price tag has yet to be determined and it's probably going to be pretty close to that white elephant called the F-22.

Considering what the F-22 is capable of, I would say that the F-35 is the one that is the white elephant here.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
mffoda
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:09 pm

RE: Boeing, Eurofighter Or F-35 For Canada?

Fri Jun 11, 2010 3:39 pm

More news from Canada....

http://defensenews-updates.blogspot.com/

(NSI News Source Info) OTTAWA, Canada - June 9, 2010: Ottawa is moving on a sole-sourced purchase of high-tech U.S. fighter jets to replace its CF-18s despite furious last-minute lobbying by rival manufacturers.

Industry and government sources said the cabinet is expected in coming days to approve the launch of negotiations on price and delivery schedules with Lockheed-Martin, the U.S.-based manufacturer of the Joint Strike Fighter F-35.
The government is moving early on buying 65 new aircraft in a bid to “lock up the price” long before the jets start entering into service in 2017, sources said.
harder than woodpecker lips...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: An225, Aptivaboy, Flighty, KrustyTheKlown, mikeyoung1801, MrBretz, trijetsonly, vrbarreto and 55 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos