The F-35 is not dead

[frosti]

You really think that Canada (or any other western country for that matter) is going to engage a country with a sophisticated air force and air defense system that would require a need for stealth technology?

You really thought that Canada was going to send fighters to fly over Libya?

If yourself, and frosti are both content with ejecting, and quite possibly freezing to death in the high arctic, because you were flying a single engine death trap, more power to you.

Flying fighters in itself is extremely risky, go up for a flight or two and you'll see for yourself. If you can't take those risks, including flying a jet with only one engine which in itself is the last thing on his mind, then go do something easy like flying bush planes or airliners for that matter.

[azimuthaviation]

Money should be spend where its needed on what is needed. Talking about procuring the most advanced fighter jet in the world (which its not) while theres healthcare crisis, our retirement age was bumped up two years, we cant afford to keep the mail delivered, and veterans benefits are being slashed is obscene.

To answer more specifically, Ill give the same answer I gave three years ago when asked. Canada's air force should invest in assets that are needed and beneficial to Canadians. That would be improved SAR capability, fire suppression, etc. Its ironic how often the argument against the F35 is made that their reliability is an issue when Canada has huge gaps in SAR capability. No one suggests improving Canada's SAR capability tho, just spend a few billion dollars working around that fact, when it comes to procuring the next fighter jet.

A few years ago my hometown was being licked by flames, from a forest fire, could have wiped the town off the map. It was extinguished literally feet from the town. A few days later one of our neighbouring towns, Slave Lake, was devastated by another fire, that eliminated one third of the homes in a matter of hours. Meanwhile Canada's entire fleet of heavy lift helicopters was engaged in nation building in Afghanistan, not scooping water from the lake, which was a few blocks away.

If you want my opinion for a practical fighter fleet for Canada, I think ours should come close to paralleling the other NATO member that is situated isolated in the high arctic in close proximity with Russia, that country being Iceland.

[frosti]

Money should be spend where its needed on what is needed. Talking about procuring the most advanced fighter jet in the world (which its not) while theres healthcare crisis, our retirement age was bumped up two years, we cant afford to keep the mail delivered, and veterans benefits are being slashed is obscene.

Cut CBC and you'll be able to afford all those things. If the F35 isn't the most advanced fighter today I don't know what world you are living in.

If you want my opinion for a practical fighter fleet for Canada, I think ours should come close to paralleling the other NATO member that is situated isolated in the high arctic in close proximity with Russia, that country being Iceland.

Great idea, now good luck finding volunteers to be stationed for any period of time in Iceland. I've been there for over a month and its not a place I'd want to call home. We have bigger issues like protecting our own country, instead of some rock in the middle of the Atlantic.

[azimuthaviation]

Cut CBC and you'll be able to afford all those things

Oh, youre one of those guys

good luck finding volunteers to be stationed for any period of time in Iceland

I said Canada's fighter jet fleet should be similiar to Iceland's. Canada's high arctic territory is comparable to the geography of Iceland's and they sleep soundly with what they have.

We have bigger issues like protecting our own country

Seriously? Do you read the posts here? Theyre not about protecting our country, they are about fulfilling NATO commitments, defending Poland, defending Ukraine...

[frosti]

Oh, youre one of those guys

And you are one of "those guys" who want to sacrifice national defense for some social programs.

I said Canada's fighter jet fleet should be similiar to Iceland's.

I don't know if you are trolling or just extremely misinformed.

Seriously? Do you read the posts here? Theyre not about protecting our country, they are about fulfilling NATO commitments, defending Poland, defending Ukraine...

Riiiiight. We can't even protect our own country and you want to go off and "defend" eastern european countries from big bad Bear?

[trampbike]

Canada is still bound by the covenant it made to that irrelevant cold war era organisation? For what reason in 2014? What has NATO ever done operationally? Provided air support in third world conflicts while outsourcing the ground fighting to the locals? The KLA, the NTC, Northern Alliance. Is that what NATO was created for? Is that what Canada signed up for? Why does Canada have to constantly adapt to NATO's ever changing mandate which is dictated by superpowers with their own agendas? Its obvious what they have to gain, financially, militarily, politically, but why do we have to pick up the tab?

You do realise this has nothing to do with aircraft procurement?
Given the current political choices made by Canada, what is the fighter that would be the best choice the replace the Hornet?
This is what this discussion should be about.
You can talk politics if you want, and there are plenty of things to reconsider and criticize, but this is an aviation forum, and this is a F-35 thread, so I think it's beside the point. In any case, saying we should simply not buy fighters makes sense to me. However, using this argument to end up saying we should buy fighters, but not F-35, is simply ignorant.

while theres healthcare crisis, our retirement age was bumped up two years, we cant afford to keep the mail delivered, and veterans benefits are being slashed is obscene.

Again... how is that an argument against the F-35? It's an argument against buying fighters. It's totally valid, but has nothing to do with the specifics of the F-35, which you know nothing about.

Talking about procuring the most advanced fighter jet in the world (which its not)

Oh and there I thought you were saying we should not spend money on such a high end machine...
Coherence doesn't seem to be your strong point in this discussion.
Please tell me about more advanced fighters, I'd love to read about them.

I said Canada's fighter jet fleet should be similiar to Iceland's. Canada's high arctic territory is comparable to the geography of Iceland's and they sleep soundly with what they have.

What they have is fighters from allied countries doing the job. I love how the most misinformed are always those with the strongest opinions.

[azimuthaviation]

What they have is fighters from allied countries doing the job.

The point is they are a member of NATO and they have no fighter jets. They don't need them and they made a practical decision not to have any. So such a condition is not unprecedented.

Oh and there I thought you were saying we should not spend money on such a high end machine...
Coherence doesn't seem to be your strong point in this discussion.
Please tell me about more advanced fighters, I'd love to read about them.

The limitations of the F-35 has been well covered, I dont see any need to even mention that, that point should be well established by now. Go back and read some of the F35 threads here, same two people saying the F35 is the best thing since sliced bread, same two people saying its the Ford Edsel of fighter jets. This same thread is in its fourth year now (started as F35 is looking like a white elephant, back when Colonel Sanders was still called Hedley) with the same pro and con points -and none in active service yet.

[trampbike]

What they have is fighters from allied countries doing the job.

The point is they are a member of NATO and they have no fighter jets. They don't need them and they made a practical decision not to have any. So such a condition is not unprecedented.

Yep, different countries, different political choices, different solutions, different discussion... (hint: the discussion you try to start is not aviation related)

The limitations of the F-35 has been well covered, I dont see any need to even mention that, that point should be well established by now.

Established by whom exactly?
You wrote that the F-35 was not the most advanced fighter, PLEASE support such a claim with at least one example.

Go back and read some of the F35 threads here

I don't think it's going to be necessary, since my main source of knowledge on the subject doesn't come from a forum.

[Tom H]

I took a trip up to cold lake, had a tour of the base.. I personally asked a few of the fighter pilots of their preference in Canadas new fighter jet. I had 3 of the 4 i asked all say F-35, the 4th said he wanted Typhoon (said his personal favorite fighter)

Interesting

I have talked to fighter pilots (very recently retired and current) and gotten very different results. But given that even this far greater sample is still no where near being relevant in terms of percentage.

The two things that ALL had in common though was that dropping to 65 fighters for a country this size is a joke.

The other was that having ALL training to type moved out of country was also a joke.

And frankly I agree.

The Soviet cold war doctrine of having a very, very large number of aircraft that are good vs the Western Doctrine of having a small number of cutting edge has proven superior through out most of history from the time of Hannibal in all forms of combat.

In short....it doesn't matter how good you or your equipment is if you are overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

The balance of this discussion mirrors the NFA BS of the late 70s when I was in the CAF.

We will get what is politically determined....period.

Personally I think the F-35 is the wrong aircraft for the wrong mission.

Worse we are not getting enough to protect our borders OR make a significant contribution to any multi national conflict.

The RCAF has a ton of problems right now...if I am to believe what I am told it starts with the ability to recruit and retain personnel and continues through much of overall operations from SAR to Transport to Combat capability.

This is not a reflection of the capabilities of the current members. I believe that as individuals they are doing the mission exceptionally with the situation/equipment on hand.

But it rests with the diminishing of the overall size and capability of the total Armed Forces and lack of clarity that comes from a lack of leadership and clear direction at the political level.

If nothing else maybe this botched procurement will lead to a hard look at what we are doing and hopefully a rejuvenation of the Forces in total.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[azimuthaviation]

my main source of knowledge on the subject doesn't come from a forum.

Well unless you are in the engineering department at Lockheed Martin your information comes from the same sources as everyone else which is media and other public information. People are interpreting that information quite differently, at all levels, from armchair pundits, to engineers, to government and military officials, fighter pilots etc. No one opinion negates the other, however strongly one may believe he's right. I hardly feel the need to throw my opinion in with the rest as far as the capabilities of the aircraft. Thats not the point Im trying to make. My point is its useless, being bought with political considerations, dangerous in the wrong hands, and that better priorities need to be made.

[trampbike]

[quote="azimuthaviation"] I hardly feel the need to throw my opinion in with the rest as far as the capabilities of the aircraft. Thats not the point Im trying to make./quote]
Yeah you kind of did. Please offer at least one example of a more advanced fighter, or admit that on this aspect you were talking way out of your lane. As far as the political aspect, I'll say it again: it's a valid argument against the procurement of fighters. In no way is it an argument against the F-35 specifically.

[Gannet167]

If Iceland doesn't need fighters, why do several countries (Canada included) deploy up there to provide defense for them? I think they need them and would love to have them but rely on others to help them out. They also have a tiny (and bankrupt) economy compared to Canada's.

The argument about whether Canada can afford a jet fighter or not belongs in a political forum. But if we're considering where bang for the buck can be put with limited public funds, consider that Canada spends a minuscule percentage of our GDP on defense. Compared to countries with similar or even smaller economies, we do not contribute very much to protecting the country or participating in world events.

Here's a great article from 2012: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -to-shame/

Notably: "Although Canada’s economy is nearly twice the size of Australia’s – and has about 40 per cent more people – Canada lags far behind in defence spending.

Australia spent $29 billion on its armed forces last year. That is about $7 billion more than Canada did. Given the relative size of the two economies and populations, for the federal government to match Australia on defence spending would require an annual out-lay of between $35 billion and $40 billion, rather than the $22 billion that was spent last year."


He goes on to say: "Support for – or hostility toward – defence spending in Canada follows the usual political fault lines. This is in sharp contrast to Australia, where there is a broad political consensus that adequate funding is vital to the national interest. So much so, in fact, that for Australian parliamentarians and the media, defence spending is not a hugely controversial subject."

Another great article: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... t-defence/

Notably: "Australia’s larger emphasis on defence may be a necessity, but it’s also possible thanks to the country’s mature political stance on defence. To the Australians, national security isn’t about politics, but securing the nation, which is something valued more than partisanship. In Canada, by contrast, each party uses the military as a political prop, to use and abuse as necessary for electoral gain, and then ignore and underfund until the next election."

Without air superiority, you have no ability to conduct air operations. While Canada will likely never go to war alone, our security and importance in world events depends on our membership and participation of some larger coalition. We're dependent on our friends for our defense and existence, we're not unique in that way but our size and position between US and Russia is. If we lack any ability to participate in a meaningful way and carry our weight, we really will be at the peril of someone else. 30 years from now, the plane we buy today will determine if we're invited to the table and taken seriously.

[Big Pistons Forever]

For all those Air Force pilots, especially those not in the fast jet community, I would suggest you be careful about what you wish for, because you may get it.

There are 2 fundamental truths about the Canadian Military

1) Tactics and equipment don't win the conflicts we engage in, political will shapes out success........ or failure

2) When it comes to Capital Procurement capability matters less than money.

Re Point 1) The reality is we don't have to have the bleeding edge capability because there has never in been a case where Canada was not in a supporting role to a much larger force with both the capability and the will to initiate conflict.

Re Point 2) Defense budgeting is a zero sum game. Spend more on fighters means you spend less on some other capability. You are simply not credible arguing the case for the F35 unless you come clean on what capability doesn't get funded at the current estimate for our delivery cost, which is $ 92 Million a copy (according to the GAO) and operating costs ( 25 % higher than the current F 18, according to Lockheed).

So what Air Force capability gets given up, or what is the minimum number of aircraft that represents viable capability if total numbers are cut to keep inside the budget ?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Without air superiority, you have no ability to conduct air operations. While Canada will likely never go to war alone, our security and importance in world events depends on our membership and participation of some larger coalition. We're dependent on our friends for our defense and existence, we're not unique in that way but our size and position between US and Russia is. If we lack any ability to participate in a meaningful way and carry our weight, we really will be at the peril of someone else. 30 years from now, the plane we buy today will determine if we're invited to the table and taken seriously.

Sure but you don't necessarily need an F 35 to have air superiority. The F 15 has been operating for almost 40 years by several different Air Forces. It's air to air kill ratio is 115 to 0. An F 15 has never been shot down by another fighter.

I realize there is more to air superiority than the air to air fight, but to me that tells me Western technology and Western training/operational control/support/logistics is already hugely ahead of everyone else. How much better do we really have to be......

[trampbike]

As for aircraft with higher capabilities than the F-35, there are many, arguably every single one in active service around the world, seeing as how the F-35 is not even in active service, and it already has proven to be a pariah.

So it's not in active service, but it's already proven to be a pariah? It doesn't follow.

The F-35 is a single role aircraft

That's funny.

As And the other issue with so called stealth, is that military radar capability is constantly improving, to the point that previous stealth is no longer stealthy, and even current stealth will not be stealthy for long. The best bet is to use jammers, but that it another story.

Wow, such knowledge.
Very wow.
Much deep understanding.

[careerpilot?]

Gannet167 - I wish this forum had a like button, cause you nailed it.

Other countries with half our economies seem to find a way to fund what is necessary - because they haven't forgotten the lessons of history. There are much deeper issues in our government and higher military echelons that need sorting first: corruption, wasteful spending and overstaffing to name a few. If we were more efficient with our money, we'd have a lot more to dedicate to defence - but that is a discussion for a different forum...

[azimuthaviation]

An F 15 has never been shot down by another fighter.

But a Syrian pilot came as close as anyone ever has. Fired at an IAF F15, struck the engine which exploded and caught fire. The plane was able to race back to Israel on fire with one engine. Tell me how that would have ended if it were an F35 in that situation?

Much deep understanding

on this aspect you were talking way out of your lane

So what makes you an expert exactly? Besides mocking everyone who opposes your point of view what makes you think you know more? Is it because you have analyzed the available data and deem your opinions to be better informed or better analyzed or are you privy to some other data that the rest of us are not?

Please offer at least one example of a more advanced fighter

Thats a silly question, you want to compare what exists now to what the F35 is slated to be able to achieve in a realm that is somewhere between theoretical and fantasy? No, I dont fancy myself an expert on this issue, which is why I havent said much about it, maybe I am "out of my lane." Frankly its not an area Im that interested in or have much experience in, as far as a technical aspect is concerned. But there are the facts that there are aircraft that are faster, with longer range, that are far more maneuverable, with longer combat radius, shorter take-off not to mention the lack of redundancy in the engine (see above) and so on and so on. So no, I dont think too highly of the F35's capabilities, and Im far from alone. And people with far more knowledge on the subject are of that opinion. Some of them can be found on this message board, others have also made their analyses public.

[azimuthaviation]

because they haven't forgotten the lessons of history

I am relatively well aware of historical parallels. Rather than draw parallels between the Russian intervention in Crimea with the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia, how about compare the Russian intervention in Crimea with the last time Russia invaded Crimea. I posted this in the previous F35 board here when someone mentioned the F35 needed to counteract any Russian aggression.

The Russians tried expanding their territory by taking from the Ottomans, losing the Crimean war and selling off Alaska in order to pay for the war.

Then they thought about expanding east, where the Japanese soundly defeated them, and they lost the Sakhalin islands to the Japanese in the surrender.

Undaunted Tsar Nicholas found an opportunity in WW1 to expand and joined the war against Germany, in the surrender a year later Russian relinquished half of its territory to Germany, it was only reclaimed when the Germans lost the war and were forced to give it back.

In 1979 The Soviets finally had the confidence to expand militarily again and made an attempt at Afghanistan. When they went home 10 year later they found their citizens waiting in lines a mile long for a piece of bread. Their empire died a year later.

If Russia wants to go to war with Canada, I think if history is an indication, we would probably get St Petersburg in a peace deal.

So learn a lesson from the 19th century Americans, stayed completely out of the Crimean war and gained Alaska. They break even on that deal every three hours. Now today you are saying that the Russian intervention in Crimea is a good reason for Canada to build up its defense capabilities? I would think this would be a good time to stay the hell out and get ready to go in and pick up the pieces of whatever is left of Russia when Putin is done with it. Lessons of history. Learn them.

[trampbike]

An F 15 has never been shot down by another fighter.

But a Syrian pilot came as close as anyone ever has. Fired at an IAF F15, struck the engine which exploded and caught fire. The plane was able to race back to Israel on fire with one engine. Tell me how that would have ended if it were an F35 in that situation?

Very likely it would have shot down the Syrian aircraft beforehand and would not have been hit... Pure speculation, but you seem to like that.
BTW Israel is ordering F-35, not new F-15. So weird.

So what makes you an expert exactly? Besides mocking everyone who opposes your point of view what makes you think you know more? Is it because you have analyzed the available data and deem your opinions to be better informed or better analyzed or are you privy to some other data that the rest of us are not?

I'm mocking points that do not stand up against basic logic. You can go back this thread and try to understand my point of view, it might not be what you assume it is. I haven't affirmed much about the F-35, but I can certainly mock statements that make no sense (ex: the one about stealth being useless, or that stealth is the only strong point of this aircraft, or that there are more avdanced fighters on the market, or that someone can know what's going to happen in the following 4 decades...)

I remember STL arguing that Canada should lose its fighter capability, and I found nothing to argue against that. It's a political choice, and with every decision come some pros and cons. STL however, did not bother making ignorant claims about the F-35 capabilities. See the difference?

Please offer at least one example of a more advanced fighter

Thats a silly question

With silly statements (yours: "it is not the most advanced fighter"), come silly questions.

But there are the facts that there are aircraft that are faster, with longer range, that are far more maneuverable, with longer combat radius, shorter take-off not to mention the lack of redundancy in the engine (see above) and so on and so on.

If you think that these are the factors that really come into play when it comes to fighters operational efficiency for the 21st century, then fill your boots and continue to enjoy being able to have strong opinions about stuff you actually do not understand.

EDIT: spelling

[azimuthaviation]

If you think that these are the factors that really come into play when it comes to fighters operational efficiency for the 21st century, then fill your boots and continue to enjoy being able to have strong opinions about stuff you actually do not understand.

Oh please, enlighten me. Is it the electronics? The avionics? If thats the case then theyre in even more trouble. You think those people are capable of building and maintaining complex electronic systems? I work in avionics, you give them way too much credit. They have to call me in when a light bulb burns out. They cant figure out why it suddenly got dark.

[davecessna]

I feel like starting a fire seeing as the mods are completely absent on these forums.

This debate is irrelevant. By the time we get any brand new replacement, remote unmanned fighters will have completely replaced manned ones, or well on the way to completely replacing them. Fighter aces will be a guy in his bathrobe in Moose Jaw controlling a jet doing an arctic patrol.

It's going to come a lot sooner than you think given the current global state of affairs.

[bizjets101]

An F 15 has never been shot down by another fighter

By accident it has http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=46490

[Gannet167]

Money should be spend where its needed on what is needed... Meanwhile Canada's entire fleet of heavy lift helicopters was engaged in nation building in Afghanistan, not scooping water from the lake, which was a few blocks away.

Canada did not even have heavy lift helos at that time. We were leasing them from Denmark, and a few people have remarked that some were the same serial numbers as the ones we sold off years ago. We've only just received the new ones (single sourced, ahem) well after the combat mission ended. Even if we'd had them, it's doubtful that the CF would have sent them to do forest fire fighting. There's lots of things we could scrap to put money towards better initiatives. Defending the country should not be one of them.

If you want my opinion for a practical fighter fleet for Canada, I think ours should come close to paralleling the other NATO member that is situated isolated in the high arctic in close proximity with Russia, that country being Iceland.

Iceland is a tiny island nation with a population of 320,000 (about the size of Victoria BC) with a GDP of $13.6 B, ranking 124th in the world. Canada is a G7 nation with the second largest landmass, the world's largest undefended border, 3 coasts and an economy about 135 times larger at $1,839 B. Is Iceland really the metric to compare our defense spending against?

[careerpilot?]

because they haven't forgotten the lessons of history

I am relatively well aware of historical parallels. Rather than draw parallels between the Russian intervention in Crimea with the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia, how about compare the Russian intervention in Crimea with the last time Russia invaded Crimea. I posted this in the previous F35 board here when someone mentioned the F35 needed to counteract any Russian aggression.

The Russians tried expanding their territory by taking from the Ottomans, losing the Crimean war and selling off Alaska in order to pay for the war.

Then they thought about expanding east, where the Japanese soundly defeated them, and they lost the Sakhalin islands to the Japanese in the surrender.

Undaunted Tsar Nicholas found an opportunity in WW1 to expand and joined the war against Germany, in the surrender a year later Russian relinquished half of its territory to Germany, it was only reclaimed when the Germans lost the war and were forced to give it back.

In 1979 The Soviets finally had the confidence to expand militarily again and made an attempt at Afghanistan. When they went home 10 year later they found their citizens waiting in lines a mile long for a piece of bread. Their empire died a year later.

If Russia wants to go to war with Canada, I think if history is an indication, we would probably get St Petersburg in a peace deal.

So learn a lesson from the 19th century Americans, stayed completely out of the Crimean war and gained Alaska. They break even on that deal every three hours. Now today you are saying that the Russian intervention in Crimea is a good reason for Canada to build up its defense capabilities? I would think this would be a good time to stay the hell out and get ready to go in and pick up the pieces of whatever is left of Russia when Putin is done with it. Lessons of history. Learn them.

In an effort to keep this on topic, I am not going to enter a debate about history with you. I will simply say that you clearly missed my point, which was to say that what war will look like, or who we will be fighting, is impossible to predict - therefore, it is foolhardy to believe that future wars will resemble the asymmetrical conflicts we have been involved in since the 90s. We need to be prepared in case WWIII starts - regardless of who it may be against. Russia is just one possibility (though the most likely, others could be China, a nuclear armed North Korea... etc). To leave ourselves unprepared is to leave no deterrent for any future aggressor, and therefore increase the likelihood of it happening.

[azimuthaviation]

There's lots of things we could scrap to put money towards better initiatives. Defending the country should not be one of them.

I agree wholeheartedly. But when you come from a town where people are dying waiting to see a doctor because his arrival is delayed due to a NATO bombing campaign on his country only six months after seeing flames and smoke tower over the house you grew up in because of a lack of firefighting resources, our idea of defending the country will differ.