F-35 Orders

[Isto]

I was reading wikipedia F-35 article and browsed the countries that have ordered the plane. I noticed two strange things.

First, Canada have not ordered the planes. Second, Swizerland have ordered the planes.

Any thoughts on this ?

[Wdll]

I was reading wikipedia F-35 article and browsed the countries that have ordered the plane. I noticed two strange things.

First, Canada have not ordered the planes. Second, Swizerland have ordered the planes.

Any thoughts on this ?


I don't know about Canada, but the Swiss have decided to get the F-35, so that is that.

Also a few days ago Finland ordered 64 I believe F-35B.

[DRG]

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 21, 2021.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/canada-spends-another-us-71m-on-f-35-amid-calls-to-cancel-fighter-jet-purchase-1.5517876

I won't comment on this as it would reveal just how much I despise the current :censor: Federal Government ( Oops........:doh:)

Suffice to say the current minority government leans left and the further-to-the-left wing parties prop it up to a Majority wants nothing to do with the F-35 as reading that article will reveal as will this link

https://nofighterjets.ca/

APPARENTLY......... "The purpose of these jets is to drop bombs and kill people." :eek: Gee.... who knew?

These geniuses ignore the fact that "Canadian companies have secured more than US$2 billion in production and maintenance contracts" related to the F-35

That's the political aspect of it.

On the "practical" side one issue that will always exist here is the perceived need for these types of aircraft to have two engines and the F-35 has one and that is a big issue

[vyrago]

Canada was part of the F-35 development program and was scheduled to buy roughly 65 fighters. But following a change in government in 2015, the order was cancelled for purely political reasons. Reasons given were rising costs and concerns about the overall effectiveness of the F-35's so called "stealth". Turns out this concern was mostly misinformation. The F-35 has since been proven to be quite stealthy. Canada is still in need of a new fighter to replace its again legacy CF-188s (F/A-18A++ Hornets). New fighter competition was initiated with three primary contenders: The Lockheed-Martin F-35, the Saab Gripen and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Block III Super Hornet. The Super Hornet was just eliminated from the competition. The only public statement as to why it was eliminated was that the offer from Boeing did "not meet the requirements of Canada" with no further reasons given. That leaves the 4.5 Generation Saab Gripen and the Lockheed-Martin F-35. Many believe the F-35 will eventually be the winner of the competition, despite its earlier cancellation. Both the F-35 and Gripen are single-engine fighters with roughly the same range. In the past Canada has preferred twin-engine fighters with a preference for longer operating ranges.

[Wdll]

Canada was part of the F-35 development program and was scheduled to buy roughly 65 fighters. But following a change in government in 2015, the order was cancelled for purely political reasons. Reasons given were rising costs and concerns about the overall effectiveness of the F-35's so called "stealth". Turns out this concern was mostly misinformation. The F-35 has since been proven to be quite stealthy. Canada is still in need of a new fighter to replace its again legacy CF-188s (F/A-18A++ Hornets). New fighter competition was initiated with three primary contenders: The Lockheed-Martin F-35, the Saab Gripen and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Block III Super Hornet. The Super Hornet was just eliminated from the competition. The only public statement as to why it was eliminated was that the offer from Boeing did "not meet the requirements of Canada" with no further reasons given. That leaves the 4.5 Generation Saab Gripen and the Lockheed-Martin F-35. Many believe the F-35 will eventually be the winner of the competition, despite its earlier cancellation. Both the F-35 and Gripen are single-engine fighters with roughly the same range. In the past Canada has preferred twin-engine fighters with a preference for longer operating ranges.

Doesn't the F-35 carry almost double the payload of the Gripen?

[DRG]

Both the Grippen and F-35 have one engine. The rationale for having two is if one fails in the middle of nowhere the other has a chance of getting the aircraft and pilot back to base. If you only have one and it fails then for certain the best-case scenario is a successful search and rescue operation in the middle of nowhere.

This is not to say this is the correct way to look at the issue but it is another ( longstanding..... ) excuse for the government to cite when dragging its feet on making a decision

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well, I'm wondering is Canada a wealthy country? From my view south of the border, Canada has mostly appeared to be a "fiscally" minded country especially when it becomes to military spending overall.

I've provided what is a good objective look at these two aircraft. But keeping with the above fiscal theme, there are huge advantages for Canada here.

As per the chart all monetary amounts are expressed in U.S. Dollars.

1. FLIGHT COST PER HR. GRIPEN $7800/F-35 $43,200 =
Cost savings to Canada per aircraft per hr. of $35,400.

2. UNIT COST GRIPEN $45 million/F-35 $180 million = Cost savings to Canada per aircraft of $135 million. Another way to look at this number is for every F-35 bought they could buy 4 GRIPENS.

3. I hope you'll note the other differences between these jets notably, GRIPEN can outmaneuver, climb faster and is faster (MACH 2.0 vs MACH 1.6.)

It should be pointed out that MACH 2.0 is considered one of the true indicators of a Stealth fighter. The F-22 is still the only one currently flying that meets all those requirements.

It boils down to does Canada really need a "stealth" fighter and can it bear the cost of maintaining it?
https://aviatia.net/saab-gripen-vs-f-35-lightning-ii/

Regards,
Pat
:capt:

[wulfir]

I'm surprised Canada dropped the new Hornet? This is the plane I thought Finland would go with for their new fighter - some Swedish media claims the Finns had the Hornet as the number two choice (and the Swedish 39E only made third place)...

[Isto]

May i ask why a "true" stealth fighter have to reach Mach 2.0 ?

[DRG]

And then.....(sigh....:mad: ).. there was the Avro Arrow..........



The Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow was a delta-winged interceptor aircraft designed and built by Avro Canada. The CF-105 held the promise of Mach 2 speeds at altitudes exceeding 50,000 feet and was intended to serve as the Royal Canadian Air Force's primary interceptor into the 1960s and beyond.

A top speed of Mach 1.98 was achieved, and this was not at the limits of its performance

it's important to remember that was done in 1958...... :censor:goverment. They believed the BS that manned aircraft was a thing of the past and future battle would only involve missiles

62 years later it still pisses me off big time

[Isto]

But you know, they might be right.

What other are planes than flying missile launching platforms.

For example, could thousand modern Area SAM systems be more efficient defence than 64 Fighter Planes ?


I dont know are US Anti Missiles any good, but Wikipedia states Patriot SAM system to cost 2 million dollars. They could probably get something like ten thousand of them with the same amount of money than those 80 planes.

If they are effective, and can shoot missiles and planes down, wouldnt you think twice before attacking an area with ten thousand of those, or even thousand.


If i understand right, Fighter Planes main focus is to attack distant targets. If you only plan on defending an area, on what do you need them exactly ?

[geoff]

A plane can positively identify a target before engaging. There have been a number of occasions where a commercial jet has been shot down by an anti-aircraft missile in circumstances where it is reasonable to assume that a fighter pilot would have at least queried base before engaging.

[Isto]

Fake News

[geoff]

whatever