Should we buy the F-35?

[pharoahjared]

Because you can improve something so much, after a point you have to start from scratch.

[karolus10]

Sometimes making stuff specialized in almost everything, not end very well.

[chobit-389]

Because you can improve something so much, after a point you have to start from scratch.

Which is where the CF-XX comes in.

Sometimes making stuff specialized in almost everything, not end very well.

Exactly, they tried to cram too much into the F-35, if they'd just intended it to replace the Harrier or make it their main carrier-based fighter, that'd be fine. But a single class of plane can't do EVERYTHING, this is why you see so much variety

[pharoahjared]

Which is where the CF-XX comes in.

F-35 is an original design.

[chobit-389]

And so is the CF-XX, the only people we're ripping off is ourselves

[karolus10]

Yeah, when heard about F-35 first time (and rejected X-32) , it was pretty much replacement for the harrier, but now it is an ultimate solution vs all Air-force needs... like USAF version of "pentagon wars" (funny movie BTW).

Edited May 6, 2013 by karolus10

[pharoahjared]

And so is the CF-XX, the only people we're ripping off is ourselves

but unlike the F-35 you are going to be spending billions of dollars to develop it.

[Nibb31]

There's more to building a fighter jet that pretty 3D renders and powerpoint slides. Building a modern fighter aircraft for a single domestic market is not viable any more, as France has proven by going with the domestic Rafale instead of participation in EuroFighter. A single country like Canada (or France) can't maintain the critical number of fighter jets for which it becomes economical.

Once the planes are built, you still need to maintain assembly lines and tooling for spare parts, which means that you have to keep ordering parts from the contractor companies even if you don't need them. This is viable when there are thousands of aircraft of that model, but when there are only 200 or so, it ends up way too expensive. France recently had to order 100 more Rafales, not because they needed them or could even afford them, but because the Rafale has been a failure on the export market and if they didn't, the contractors might close down, which would cause supply problems on some vital spare parts.

The one advantage of the Rafale is that it is truly multi-role. There is a carrier version, an air superiority version, a nuclear strike/ground attack version, electronic warfare version, and so on... Therefore instead of maintaining several aircraft types, you only have one type and it costs less. The US has the F-22, the F-18, the A-10, and still lots of F-15, F-16 and a few others. Although it's nice to have specialized aircraft, it costs a lot to maintain a supply chain for all those different aircraft types. This was also a major appeal of the F-35.

As for the F-35, most participating countries have spent so much money on it, that it will now be cheaper to go ahead and get the planes that to cancel the program and get nothing. Besides, there is no other option. The Harriers are outdated and falling apart. The UK, Italy, and Spain need a new multi-role fighter for their carriers. These are non-CATOBAR carriers, so they are stuck with STOL/VTOL unless they are converted to helicopter carriers. To start a new program for a replacement for the F-35 would cost even more billions and take another 15 or 20 years.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Nibb31

[Tommygun]

Yes, what Nibb31 just said, but I was to lazy to type all that.

On a side note the Harrier is one of the most dangerous aircraft to fly, as it's so unstable.

It's crash rate alone, I think, is a good enough reason to replace it.

http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/6722

From the article written in 2003:

Over the last three decades, it has amassed the highest rate of major accidents of any Air Force, Navy, Army or Marine plane now in service. Forty-five Marines have died in 143 noncombat accidents since the corps bought the so-called jump jet from the British in 1971. More than a third of the fleet has been lost to accidents.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Tommygun

[bsalis]

I think for partner countries in the JSF development program, it would have been better to purchase Russian hardware (eg. Sukhoi Su-27). It's cheaper, effective, and pretty damn good if your not fussed about stealth. However because of history and alliances, partner countries have to stick with American hardware.

F-35 is surely one of most expensive US military programs ever, cost of F-35 is so unreasonable high, that (even) NASA could put man (not only one) on Mars easily with such funding... and we taking about weapon system that aren't superior over F-22 and could be never deployed during their service... not really understand US reasoning .

High costs are high revenue for defence contractors. Sadly this seems to matter more now than actual defence. Now countries other than the USA are getting sucked in.

[Leonov]

I think for partner countries in the JSF development program, it would have been better to purchase Russian hardware (eg. Sukhoi Su-27). It's cheaper, effective, and pretty damn good if your not fussed about stealth. However because of history and alliances, partner countries have to stick with American hardware.

High costs are high revenue for defence contractors. Sadly this seems to matter more now than actual defence. Now countries other than the USA are getting sucked in.

Theres a fallacy for the Defence contractor "High Cost = High Profit" statement, but i cant be bothered to find it. Technology is expensive, Technology is very expensive, Look at the F-117 Nighthawk, it is very expensive for the cutting edge of technology. The costs to develop these kinds of projects are insane.

If i were a country in need of an airforce i would be learly of buying ex-soviet hardware. Why not spend the extra bit for a fleet of F-18s if your country can afford it?, it will always get into the parable for quality over quantity.

[BossSquirrelz]

I'm a fan of the V-22 Osprey myself.

[Leonov]

I'm a fan of the V-22 Osprey myself.

The V-22 is a great idea, but only if they can make the Hydralics for the engine tilt reliable. Still think Blackhawks are better, and will be more cost effective in the long run if stealth isnt going to be a priority.

[Nibb31]

I think for partner countries in the JSF development program, it would have been better to purchase Russian hardware (eg. Sukhoi Su-27). It's cheaper, effective, and pretty damn good if your not fussed about stealth. However because of history and alliances, partner countries have to stick with American hardware.

If they were going to buy last generation off-the-shelf, there's already a lot of options in the NATO inventory, like the Rafale, the Viggen or the F-18. I doubt any of the Russian planes are interoperable with NATO weapon systems and consumables.

Besides, the Su-27 isnt STOL/VTOL, which is the main reason of existence of the F-35. The F-35B is needed for the smaller carriers that are used by the JSF partners: the Cavour, the Principe de Asturias, the all-new Queen Elizabeth class, and a whole fleet of US amphibious assault ships. These ships don't have a catapult, so they are restricted by the type of aircraft that can be used on them. An aircraft carrier without aircraft is a bit laughable, and the only one available is the F-35B, so they are stuck with it, whatever the cost.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Nibb31

[Canopus]

It's the CF-XX Super Arrow, proof Canadians don't need Yankee hand-holding to survive

This thing looks like something out of Ace Combat.

[flyin_ruski]

The V-22 is a great idea, but only if they can make the Hydralics for the engine tilt reliable. Still think Blackhawks are better, and will be more cost effective in the long run if stealth isnt going to be a priority.

It's more than an idea now. It has replaced 90% of the ch-46's that we used to have on this base

[ZedNova]

I'd rather we not make tons of new fighters, the navy is making a carrier that will theoretically stay in service for 90 years. Why can't we make a fighter that has parts that can be switched out depending on it's mission? Something that can be upgraded easily when new technology comes out?

I'd take this over the F-35:

I swear if building a fighter was like making a computer, we'd need a whole lot less of them.

[Why485]

There's more to building a fighter jet that pretty 3D renders and powerpoint slides. Building a modern fighter aircraft for a single domestic market is not viable any more, as France has proven by going with the domestic Rafale instead of participation in EuroFighter. A single country like Canada (or France) can't maintain the critical number of fighter jets for which it becomes economical.

Once the planes are built, you still need to maintain assembly lines and tooling for spare parts, which means that you have to keep ordering parts from the contractor companies even if you don't need them. This is viable when there are thousands of aircraft of that model, but when there are only 200 or so, it ends up way too expensive. France recently had to order 100 more Rafales, not because they needed them or could even afford them, but because the Rafale has been a failure on the export market and if they didn't, the contractors might close down, which would cause supply problems on some vital spare parts.

The one advantage of the Rafale is that it is truly multi-role. There is a carrier version, an air superiority version, a nuclear strike/ground attack version, electronic warfare version, and so on... Therefore instead of maintaining several aircraft types, you only have one type and it costs less. The US has the F-22, the F-18, the A-10, and still lots of F-15, F-16 and a few others. Although it's nice to have specialized aircraft, it costs a lot to maintain a supply chain for all those different aircraft types. This was also a major appeal of the F-35.

As for the F-35, most participating countries have spent so much money on it, that it will now be cheaper to go ahead and get the planes that to cancel the program and get nothing. Besides, there is no other option. The Harriers are outdated and falling apart. The UK, Italy, and Spain need a new multi-role fighter for their carriers. These are non-CATOBAR carriers, so they are stuck with STOL/VTOL unless they are converted to helicopter carriers. To start a new program for a replacement for the F-35 would cost even more billions and take another 15 or 20 years.

I just wanted to chime in to say that the reason I do my best to stay out of military aviation discussions on the internet is because 95% of people involved in them have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Nibb31 is not one of them. Thank you for this post.

I personally really like the F-35 itself. The program is inarguably a mess, but to deny that the F-35 is far and away one of the most advanced and capable multi-role fighters out there is wrong. The weirdest part about it is that even though it's still coming out to be very expensive, when you look at the hard numbers it's not really much more expensive than say a Eurofighter or Rafale.

There is one specific issue I want to bring up though, and it was mentioned previously in the thread.

I hear the Harrier brought up many times and how its so great. People often forget the human factor. When a pilot is lost, for whatever reason, that's somebody who is now gone forever, and a family that is now missing a person. Safety is a very big deal. Whether it comes from the fact that the plane can get around the battlefield much easier using stealth, or the inherent difficulty of flying the plane. I personally know and work with a former Harrier pilot. He is glowingly proud that he's only had to eject from a Harrier once, and that he's still around to talk about it. The F-35 is an astoundingly easy plane to fly. You could teach a middle schooler how to fly the plane if they were willing to learn. Landing the jet vertically is so easy, helicopter pilots are upset about it because they had to do it the hard way.

[whatisthisidonteven]

It looks nice, but it's not as functional as some of the alternatives. Briton here, we're planning on outfitting our carriers with drones mostly. They can do pretty much anything the F-35 can do, just with smaller payloads. We'll retain a fleet of F-35s on the new QE carriers, but for the most part it's going to be drones.

This is the drone we're using:

[Leonov]

It's more than an idea now. It has replaced 90% of the ch-46's that we used to have on this base

It was my understanding that the CH-46 was on its way out in favor of the SH-60. I guess they will have both.

I have flown in a Blackhawk and they are spectacular. I can only imagine its variant is just as good as the army based version.

Lets keep this thread on-topic.

[Leonov]

It looks nice, but it's not as functional as some of the alternatives. Briton here, we're planning on outfitting our carriers with drones mostly. They can do pretty much anything the F-35 can do, just with smaller payloads. We'll retain a fleet of F-35s on the new QE carriers, but for the most part it's going to be drones.

This is the drone we're using:

Im more partial to the Global Hawk.

[pharoahjared]

High costs are high revenue for defence contractors. Sadly this seems to matter more now than actual defence. Now countries other than the USA are getting sucked in.

no, it has to do with the mentality of the US which is throw money at the problem. I can't remember the exact statistic but we spent 10-20 billion dollars every day to fight WW2.

[sodopro]

Im more partial to the Global Hawk.

I don't think the Global Hawk can carry weapons.

CF-XX just isn't gonna cut it. To build that thing would require so much money, money that could easily buy a lot of Sus or Migs. Plus its not viable. Canada doesn't need stealth. Hell, we barely even have any countries that seem like theyre going to launch a strike at us.

The CF XX is a dream. The original Arrow was great, but it takes a lot more than 3D renders to make a new plane.

Final point, we should get in on FA XX, in dev by Boeing.

[Leonov]

I don't think the Global Hawk can carry weapons.

CF-XX just isn't gonna cut it. To build that thing would require so much money, money that could easily buy a lot of Sus or Migs. Plus its not viable. Canada doesn't need stealth. Hell, we barely even have any countries that seem like theyre going to launch a strike at us.

The CF XX is a dream. The original Arrow was great, but it takes a lot more than 3D renders to make a new plane.

Final point, we should get in on FA XX, in dev by Boeing.

It is well armed, just not with your typical munitions, it is armed with a state of the art sensor system and one of the most fuel efficent jet engines around.

A simple Scout is all a modern military needs out of a drone. Plenty of Sensors on that thing for terrain mapping and target designation. The US has enough Smart munitions that only need a target location and the guidence system does the rest. Whole part of the thinking battlefield where tactical information is displayed in real time to all fighting forces, interesting stuff.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Leonov

[Tommygun]

This is the drone we're using:

Is that the X-47?