Canada and the F-35 (JSF)

[GRAIL007]

It good to see Canada has moved ahead with securing new fighters. Here's the link:

Canada and the production f-35

Now the question is how many we are going to get and what types.

Question 2 will we paint on the false canopies once again?

What will be the designation? CF-135? CF-355?

cheers

Mark

[DutyCat]

I predict your squadrons will be one less than now.

Paint scheme? Who knows? They seem to be awful fond of that medium blue gray for the top of the Hornets, but that is a USN color on a USN developed A/C. The initial JSF test birds are using USAF coloration ala F-16. It will be interesting to see what each service does with them. I do not think the USN will put the F-35 to sea with a high contrast Raptor type (obviously intended for overland use) or F-16 type scheme. The USMC will probably adopt something similar to what they now use on their AV-8's. I predict that at the end of the day, the USAF F-35 will get a Raptor or F-16 type paint job and everyone else will kinda stick with what they have now as well.

[Josh1971]

They'll have plenty of time to decide on what designation and the false canopy issue. I don't think any production planes are going to be ready for a while, are they?

Seriously, I think it's great to see another country come on board with the "Lightning II"

Welcome to the F-35 community, Canada!

jb

Edited December 12, 2006 by Josh1971

[ron]

Anyone know why they chose the F-35 and not the F-22? The F-35 is intended to replace the F-16, we opted not to go with the F-16 when we bought F-18's for a number of reasons including multi engines for reliability in artic climates etc. Why chose the next generation F-16 this time? what changed?

I think its good we are making moves to get new fighters, I am a little disappointed with the F-35 thing though. It's kind of a Dudley do all of airplanes so will it do anything well or just fit rolls with a light adequacies? Not to mention it's extremely ugly.

Which version are we looking at? The USAF, USN or USM version?

[j-fever]

I suspect to save money, they will be painted in whatever color is on sale that month at Canadian Tire. :D

I hope the F-35 is not as big a overpriced lame duck as the F-18 was... :(

Edited December 12, 2006 by j-fever

[Josh1971]

I think its good we are making moves to get new fighters, I am a little disappointed with the F-35 thing though. It's kind of a Dudley do all of airplanes so will it do anything well or just fit rolls with a light adequacies? Not to mention it's extremely ugly.

Well, I don't think it's that ugly. The A-10 has been called ugly forever. Eye of the beholder and all that. :(

I do hope, though, that it will do well in its role as a striker.

jb

[BAM'n'IVM]

Anyone know why they chose the F-35 and not the F-22?

Anyone know if the F-22 has been cleared for export? AFAIK, Lockheed isn't allowed to sell the F-22 to anyone but the USAF.

There's also the lower sticker price on the F-35 - and Canada's really not known for their large defense budget...

[GRAIL007]

Anyone know why they chose the F-35 and not the F-22? The F-35 is intended to replace the F-16, we opted not to go with the F-16 when we bought F-18's for a number of reasons including multi engines for reliability in artic climates etc. Why chose the next generation F-16 this time? what changed?

I think its good we are making moves to get new fighters, I am a little disappointed with the F-35 thing though. It's kind of a Dudley do all of airplanes so will it do anything well or just fit rolls with a light adequacies? Not to mention it's extremely ugly.

Which version are we looking at? The USAF, USN or USM version?

The Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to replace all these aircraft: F-16, F-18, A-10, and British/USMC Harriers. Not just the F-16, the raptor is the replacement for the f-15 Eagle. Which us Canadians found as too expensive to buy in the 1980s hence the purchase of the Hornet. Today the Raptor is too expensive also, (at least until they start exporting it, which will probably be quite a few years away)

The reliability issue of one engine on the JSF is said to be adequately handled by improved engine design, maintanence, and preventative engine life monitoring systems. Weather it works as advertises only time will tell.

As for the version we will probably get is the conventional type. Maybe even a Marine version to help with CAS for our troops. (lord knows we neeed it)

cheers

Mark

[DutyCat]

Anyone know why they chose the F-35 and not the F-22? The F-35 is intended to replace the F-16, we opted not to go with the F-16 when we bought F-18's for a number of reasons including multi engines for reliability in artic climates etc. Why chose the next generation F-16 this time? what changed?

Well. the Raptor is just WAAY to expensive for Canada, so that is a non starter. It is just super hi end.

The F-35 is not being procured just to replace the F-16. It is a joint service design with three specialized versions that are intended to replace the F-16, F-18, and AV-8. Operators of all three types around the world are onboard and sharing some development costs as well and will also transition to F-35. The twin engine config is attractive. The USN has always favored it, but in this case, there is no twin available unless Canada wished to procure Eurofighters or Rafales, both of which are inferior overall to the F-35. Or they could go with something Russian like a Flanker, but that is a whole other can of worms. The F-35 is the correct choice under the circumstances.

[kitnut617]

With 3500 projected to be built, the base price should be in Canada's pocket.

[Don]

So as I understand it from this ARC thread:

http://s102164210.onlinehome.us/forums/ind...howtopic=105830

The aircraft is undergoing taxi trials this week, which means that its first flight should be around the corner fairly soon. Assuming that the taxi trials and first few flights go off without a hitch, what kind of timeframe are we looking at (worst case scenario/best guess of course) for production to start? I realize that there are a great deal of hurdles to overcome before the production models start flowing, but what could be a roundabout year for the first models to roll off the line? Also, how is it decided as to who gets the aircraft first (USN/USMC/Canada/add in the country of your choice) or is every third or whatever number aircraft on the line earmarked for a specific country/branch of service?

I think that it is fantastic news for Canada to be stepping up and making decisions like this to upgrade the Canadian Armed Forces. I mean, wow look at the list of new aircraft alone that might be coming down the pike for the CAF, C-17’s, new C-130’s, new heavy lift helicopters (Chinooks have been mentioned), someone posted here something about Attack Helicopters that may be considered if some can be found, and now the F-35. Not too shabby, long overdue, and a long time coming in my humble opinion!

Regards,

Don

[Ruud]

Hoi,

I read that Australia and GB signed as well. So now there are officially 5 (USA, NL, GB, CAN, and Aust.). Here's hoping the F-35 will fly soon. I am starting to like the way it looks. It is no Viper, but there will never be another plane as nice as the Viper (just my opinion).

later

Ruud

[MoFo]

It good to see Canada has moved ahead with securing new fighters.

They actually haven't. The signing has nothing at all to do with buying the F-35. It simply means that signatories will remain partners (and one would assume, invest money) through the production phase of development. It's more a matter of 'we want to be considered for building subassemblies' than 'we want to buy your airplane'.

Better link. With the most important quote being:

While participation in this next phase does not commit the Department to purchasing the multi-role aircraft, it is helping to define and evaluate DND's future requirements for the next generation of fighter aircraft to replace the CF-18 and its capabilities.

(much of the rest is just PR and marketing/political hype)

It will probably be at least five years before Canada even decides whether they intend to buy the JSF. Paint schemes won't really matter for at least a decade.

[Don]

...It will probably be at least five years before Canada even decides whether they intend to buy the JSF. Paint schemes won't really matter for at least a decade.

And by then, natural metal may be back in vogue :) , or maybe the tri-color blue and white scheme as seen on WWII USN Hellcats will be resurrected :) , or perhaps the good old Voodoo grey with the red and white lightning flash cheat stripe :lol: ! Anything can happen paint scheme wise in five to ten years…

Regards.

[phantom]

I predict your squadrons will be one less than now.

Seeing as we are down to one on each coast, 409 west and 425 east, (+plus 410 training) one less wouldn't work too well. Can't cut much more down then what we are all ready reduced too.

[Tomcat7742]

Paint schemes won't really matter for at least a decade.

I'm pretty sure that there will be a good idea about what the CAF birds will look like before 2017.

- Chris

[Ken Middleton]

And by then, natural metal may be back in vogue , or maybe the tri-color blue and white scheme as seen on WWII USN Hellcats will be resurrected , or perhaps the good old Voodoo grey with the red and white lightning flash cheat stripe ! Anything can happen paint scheme wise in five to ten years…

Regards.

let Alvis have a crack at it and his Santa schemes.....

[MoFo]

And by then, natural metal may be back in vogue

Probably not too far off, judging by the metallic-ey paint jobs on the Raptor, Osprey et. al.

I'm pretty sure that there will be a good idea about what the CAF birds will look like before 2017.

I really wouldn't bet on it. Last I'd heard, the CAF wasn't slated to look into possible CF-18 replacements until sometime after 2015 (for some reason, 2018 is sticking in my mind). So it will be a long time before it's even known whether there will BE a Canadian F-35. Artist's conceptions are universally unreliable, so it's a matter of waiting to see once it actually hits squadron service (*if* it does...)

Just look at the recent Venezuelan Flanker buy - lots of people around interested in Flankers, lots of people interested in Latin American air forces, and yet the final paint scheme was quite different than anyone had predicted. The same will almost certainly happen with the JSF.

[Tomcat7742]

If I was a Canadian citizen then I'd be marching on the capital if they continued to dump money into an aircraft project that they may never even purchase. Do you know how much money has Canada already contributed?

Is the paint on the F-35 a sensative paint material that helps reflect radar waves? If it is, can you really get into making extravagant paint designs?

I read in Air & Space Magazine about how they had to comprimise by going with 2x1,000lb bombs versus carrying 2,000lb bombs. The USAF did not have a problem due to the development of hte GBU-39 SDB. Will this have much of an effect on the foreign partners and the armaments that they were interested in using?

- Chris

[Don]

If I was a Canadian citizen then I'd be marching on the capital if they continued to dump money into an aircraft project that they may never even purchase. Do you know how much money has Canada already contributed?

- Chris

The article in the link is quoted:

"Marine Brig. Gen. David Heinz, deputy director of the F-35 program, last week told Reuters that Canada -- which has already contributed $150 million to the program -- would sign the memorandum on Monday, followed by Australia on Tuesday..."

This is nothing all that new really. Without opening up old wounds/debates, we (Canada) literally dumped somewhere close to $800 Million (1950's dollars!) in the Avro Arrow and Orenda Iroquois project, and ended up scrapping the whole thing when Avro was so close to seeing it all come to fruition. Then there was the Panavia Tornado project that I believe Canada was involved in until they pulled out in 1969(?), eventually leading to the purchase of the Hornet. I am sure there are other projects as well but these are off the top of my head. Besides, what nation has not spent millions of dollars on developing an aircraft only to scrap the whole project? The XB-70 and TSR.2 come to mind. So anyting can happen with the F-35 and Canada. The CAF may end up getting it and they may not. But like MoFo wrote above, nothing is going to happen with regards the CAF and a new fighter aircraft for a few years…or a few years after that <_< !

Regards.

[Sean Bratton]

If I was a Canadian citizen then I'd be marching on the capital if they continued to dump money into an aircraft project that they may never even purchase. Do you know how much money has Canada already contributed?

The average Canadian citizen will really care less about what we may or may not be planning to purchase as a CF-18 replacement in the next decade. And when the decision is finally made and if Canada decides to buy another manned fighter the average Canadian citizen will then be up in arms about the total cost of the project which of course will seem overinflated as the total price tag will include spares, 20 years of contractor support, ground support equipment, tech manuals, extra engines, training, logisitics, simulators and floor mats. And the press calling an equipment purchase a "spending spree" will not help the purchase in the mind of the average Canadian citizen either. But that's a long way off and it may or may not happen.

What matters now, as Mofo has pointed out, is that the average Canadian citizen sees that we may be building parts and bits and bobs for an airplane that may top 3500 units. That means jobs and industrial benefits and technology transfers and regional diversification. And that's a pretty good deal in their eyes even if we never buy it. That's what the Government has had in mind since signing up in 1997.

[Tomcat7742]

That's wild, has Canada had any thoughts about going to the Super Hornet?

- Chris

[GRAIL007]

That's wild, has Canada had any thoughts about going to the Super Hornet?

- Chris

We will look at the SuperHornet only if Boeing promises to fix the outward canted wing pylons, as a small nation we can't afford the gas-guzzling drag produced by this type of design. We should also have the Joint Cueing helmet, AIM-9Xs, and spares throw in for free. And also we need the standard canadian Tim Hortons cup holder. If Lockheed can do it for our C-130Js, I'm sure Boeing can figure it out for us.

Get your people to call my people and we'll talk it out over lunch

Cheers

Mark

[DutyCat]

You will lose your training squadron and the pilots will get OJT.

[Sean Bratton]

From Defense-Aerospace.com.

Canada, Australia, U.K. Sign Joint Strike Fighter Agreements

(Source: US Department of Defense; issued Dec. 12, 2006)

WASHINGTON --- With the first flight of the Joint Strike Fighter set for this week, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia have “re-enlisted” for the program.

Canada signed on for the project’s production, sustainment and follow-on development phase during a Pentagon ceremony here yesterday. Australia signed on today as part of the U.S.-Australia ministerial meetings at the State Department, and the United Kingdom signed at a Pentagon ceremony today.

The Joint Strike Fighter is the Defense Department’s program for a “multi-role” stealth air-to-ground strike aircraft. The Navy, Air Force, Marines and allies are developing the system together.

Canadian Deputy Defense Minister Ward Elcock and U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a memorandum of understanding that calls on Canada to pledge $150 million toward production of the Joint Strike Fighter. Canada already has contributed $150 million to the system-development and demonstration portion of the program.

“This is a very special event, because it is a very special partnership,” England said during the ceremony. “The United States and Canada share the strongest possible bonds of friendship, family and fundamental values, as well as a common border.”

“The Joint Strike Fighter program represents a revolutionary approach to both aircraft development and international armaments cooperation,” Elcock said. “It brings together expertise from many different countries and is, as a result, the single largest fighter aircraft program in the world.”

The United Kingdom has been involved with the Joint Strike Fighter program since its inception 10 years ago and is in to the program to the tune of $2 billion. United Kingdom Minister for Defense Procurement Lord Peter Drayson signed a memorandum of understanding early today in the Pentagon.

The deputy defense secretary thanked his British counterpart and praised the way American and British forces work together. “We've had this relationship for a long, long time,” England said. “Our forces are engaged today. As we sign this, there's people out there defending freedom together. They do it every day, shoulder to shoulder, and it's the same way our nations are shoulder to shoulder. I'm just delighted that we have brought this to a conclusion today. We look forward to a long relationship with the Joint Strike Fighter program.”

The British plan for a total buy of up to 150 short-take-off-and-vertical-landing versions of the aircraft for use on two future aircraft carriers.

Canada also is making a substantial investment in the Joint Strike Fighter program. The Canadians plan to buy 80 F-35 conventional-take-off-and-landing aircraft to replace its CF-18 aircraft. The program, led by Lockheed-Martin, will build three variants of the fighter: a conventional model, a carrier model, and a vertical-take-off-and-landing model. The United States has dubbed the aircraft the F-35 Lightning 2. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps will use the three aircraft variants. The F-35 will replace the Air Force’s F-16 Falcon, the Navy’s and Marine Corps’ F/A-18 Hornet, and the Marines’ AV-8B Harrier.

Elcock stressed that the program demonstrates how well the United States and Canada can work together. “The program will allow the United States and Canada to continue to benefit from each others’ wealth of technology and expertise,” he said.

Canada expects to retire its CF-18 fleet sometime after 2017, Elcock said. “Canada needs to explore what it needs from the next generation of fighter aircraft,” he said. “Our continued involvement in this project will help us determine our future fighter requirements for the Canadian Forces. Certainly, one capability we know we want to have is interoperability with the United States and our allies.”

Australian Defense Minister Brendan Nelson signed the memorandum during a ceremony at the U.S. State Department today. “It is an extremely important day for Australia and our air-defense capability,” Nelson said. “The Joint Strike Fighter is most certainly the correct aircraft for Australia in terms of air-to-air combat and its strike capabilities.

“It will see Australia through the next 30 to 40 years. It is a state-of-the-art aircraft, and we look forward very much to the imminent first flight.”

Other international partners participating in the program are: the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Denmark and Norway. Other nations, including Singapore and Israel, have expressed interest in the program.

Officials say plans call for building more than 2,400 F-35 aircraft by 2027.

Looks like a one for one program if you can believe this arcticle. I thought I had read a while ago that the CF was looking at around 60 JSF's.

Cheers,

Sean

Edited December 13, 2006 by Sean Bratton