Harper Missing The Point On F-35s

One of the arguements against the F-35 is that it doesn't fit todays wars and the fights we find ourselves in because we don't do battle against other aircraft anymore. It looks like that arguement ignores Bosnia, Russian bombers and now Libya where we are going to be enforcing a no fly zone.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... libya.html

So now that arguement is shot down once and for all.

Now, you might be right in that there may be another aircraft out there that can meet all our needs. What I have not heard, even once, is what other credible alternative do we have? The VTOL joint strike fighter (which the Libs declined to be part of)? What other aircraft are out there that meet our needs and what costs do they represent?

If this is killed, my fear is that we will end up with the EH-101 issue - no new planes for an enormous amount of time costing both lives and money and then when we get them, they won't be as good as what was originally ordered and it will cost more than the original contract would have.

Other options include the Eurofighter Typhoon, F-15 Silent Eagle, and F-18E/F. All have similar performance characteristics sans stealth, but are all half the cost. Even when not as stealthy as the F-35, they are have much improved stealth characteristics over previous generations of aircraft, to the point where the Eurofighter and new F-18s give off the same radar signature as a flying bowling ball (pretty small compared to the size of the airframe) and the Silent Eagle is alluded to be stealthier when viewed from the front and belly than the F-35. Whether that is true or not for the new F-15 is yet to be tested, but even then, no one gives out the actual true figures of how stealthy an aircraft is, and from what angle.

Hmmm... I may concede this arguement. Thanks for the reference points. I don't think the F-15 is an option, but the other two...

We will have a very limited number of aircraft regardless of the type. The military laid out what they wanted from their new aircraft, and these specs included: stealth capability, recon, ground attack, air defense, range and electronic warfare capability.

The ranges are all similar, the top being the Euro at 2900km, the smallest being the F-35 at 2200km. (2400 and 2300 for the other two).

The Eurofighter has limited ground attack capabilities, which is rumoured to be why it was rejected by Singapore. The ground capabilities are improving however and the UK has been developing several new bomb types to meet this requirement. If they get this fixed, I would agree that this is a very good alternative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

The F-15 is in development and only has 1 developed. I can't find anything that says the F-15 is stealthier than the F-35. If you have a reference point, please attach it. It has only very limited air to air capability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Silent_Eagle

The F-18 is not stealth. It has most of the capabilities asked for, and I would agree that it is a decent contender. Based on what I have read, the Eurofighter and F-35 are better, but the cost of this is definitely more attractive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A ... per_Hornet

The F-35 is stealth, performs ground attack, recon and air defense missions which meet our requirements best. The range is slightly less and it doesn't carry as much armanment as the F-18 or Euro. I do agree that 2 engines are better than 1, but I don't see any of the above aircraft meeting all of the criteria better, though there is only so much you can glean from wiki and Jane's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_M ... ghtning_II

I'd say that if the Euro got the ground capabilites up to speed it would be the best of all these. The F-18 doesn't have the stealth nor electronics that either the Euro or F-35 have, but is significantly cheaper. Would that mean we would have more planes, or are we maxing out on the number already? The F-35 is designed specifically to defeat ground to air missles, and perform a support role as well as air defense. Pound for pound, it seems to be the best of these in it's current form.

Reference the stealth of the F-15:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/03/17/323962/pictures-boeing-unveils-upgraded-f-15-silent-eagle-with-fifth-generation.html


From the article:

Basically means that it matches the F-35 from the front, as that is the only fifth generation fighter cleared by the US gov for exports of any kind.

How about -- using the $30 billion as "seed" money to build our own? The F-35's won't be ready until about 2020. That was about the length of time it took to finance and build the Arrow. So it can be done.

Also, who has defined "our needs"(besides the military)?

How about -- using the $30 billion as "seed" money to build our own? The F-35's won't be ready until about 2020. That was about the length of time it took to finance and build the Arrow. So it can be done.

Also, who has defined "our needs"(besides the military)?

There was a difference between designing jets in the 50s and designing them today. It would take a lot longer to design a jet today. Just look at the development times of the Eurofighter, F-22, F-35, Russian Pak-Fa, etc. All took 15+ years to develop.

I agree with CM, the development timeline would be obscene. Plus, the 15+ years to make these planes were from established companies, starting from scratch would take even longer.

As far as defining our "needs", quite frankly the military better be the ones outlining that. They get the missions from the politicians, but they know better than anyone else what they need to accomplish those missions. I wouldn't want anyone else defining what their needs are.

My understanding of the F-35s, Canada is getting the cheap version, not the same as Marine-Corps, and US Air Force.

I doubt it. It's not like re-inventing the wheel. And I doubt that it need be fighter aircraft as we currently understand the term.

The Canadian military needs to disclose it's intended/supposed theatres of operation and adversaries -- 'cause it sure won't be defense of Canada.

Looks like Harpers version of the EH101 helicopter scam. History is repeating itself. Tories always want to make Canadian taxpayers a source of funding for USanian experiments.
This plane has never been built, never tested, and never flown. It only exists on paper. We are being offered as guinea pigs, and may be committing ourselves to what may turn out to be a pig in a oke.
Can you say "Edsell?" I knew you could.