# So much for the JSF F-35!



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Finally, common sense is coming back to the "pie in the sky" dreams of DND in regards to the super expensive F-35,
that is having all sorts of problems and costs rising by the day. DND is now looking at the Boeing produced (used to be McDonnell-Douglas)
produced Super Hornet, which is half the price and half the cost to operate..especially in Canada's Northern borders.

Estimated operating costs for the SuperHornet is $1600 per hour vs $3200 for the F-35.
With upcoming US defence budget cuts,the F-35 may be yet another airplane in the US Smithsonian and Pima AZ aircraft museums.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

It's hard to believe that the Super Hornet costs that much! Half the price of an F-35 seems like way too much for such a long established and well sold weapons platform. Is it really that much?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

uptoolate said:


> It's hard to believe that the Super Hornet costs that much! Half the price of an F-35 seems like way too much for such a long established and well sold weapons platform. Is it really that much?


Yup. The superhornet is based on the CF18 (F18) platform, so a lot of the initial testing in wind tunnels and certification has been done already. What they added was some stealth capability without sacrificing handling and agility for the US Navy and that is very important for Canada, on far north patrols. The avionics, weapons and defense subsystems have all been upgraded to next generation along with better engines...all that for approximately half the price of the F-35.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet



> The Super Hornet currently sells for about $55 million US apiece; the Pentagon expects the F-35 to cost twice as much — about $110 million. But only 20 per cent of the cost of owning a fighter fleet is the actual sticker price of the planes. Eighty per cent is the operating cost — what it takes to keep them flying. That means everything from pilots and fuel to maintenance and spares.*


here's the CBC report on it..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sto...er-jets-boeing-superhornet-f-35-milewski.html


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Superhornet is not next generation, it's an upgraded 4th gen. It's still old technology and it's poor value because it's a small custom order. Like asking Ford to build you a few cars from the 70's with a new engine and cd player

F-35 makes more sense "in theory" because it would be relevant much longer and could be built/maintained/interoperate with all the other countries who bought it. Superhornet was designed solely for the Navy whereas the F35 was designed for many countries and versatile uses, in fact we paid $$$ to have our inputs into its design.

The problem with the latest/greatest is that companies have advanced their profiteering skills as well. Same reason your Dodge Ram bearings blow for no good reason is the same reason military equipment now comes with hidden costs. A pilot has died and one destroyed $$$ F-22 because Lockheed wanted to save $100 on the plastic emergency oxygen handle and oxygen system valves

Military equipment should have never been made by private companies imo. Their efficiency is a falacy


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> Military equipment should have never been made by private companies imo. Their efficiency is a falacy


Yes, some of us still remember Canada's fighter program (Avro Arrow) when the gov't was involved as a partner!:rolleyes2:


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

carverman said:


> Yes, some of us still remember Canada's fighter program (Avro Arrow) when the gov't was involved as a partner!:rolleyes2:


It is a romantic story that Canada could have built its own fighter aircraft. Of course the cancellation was bad from most people's perspective, but they seem to forget we were on the front lines of a nuclear standoff between 2 superpowers. The Arrow was ahead of its time but yet already strategically obsolete, as the Americans were designing an automatic unmanned missile defense system... The choice was to join NORAD or fend for ourselves against Russia. We can only debate what the best choice was because we're still here...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

From what I've heard about the deepening US gov't financial crisis (Obama and the Republicans can't seem to agree on anything it seems), with the 85 Billion in cutbacks that went into effect on March 1, the military's budget will be slashed by 13%.
Not only will that eliminate some jobs in their armed forces, but any program that is struggling with technical difficulties could also end up on the chopping block by Sept 1 of this year.

With more countries pulling out of their "memorandum of understanding" to purchase the F35, it may end being placed on the chopping block in the end.
This wouldn't be the first time, the US has placed a advanced weapons program on the chopping block due to economic issues.

Australia has already bought SuperHornets, because of delays and increasing costs per unit of the F35 program.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

mode3sour said:


> It is a romantic story that Canada could have built its own fighter aircraft. Of course the cancellation was bad from most people's perspective, but they seem to forget we were on the front lines of a nuclear standoff between 2 superpowers. The Arrow was ahead of its time but yet already strategically obsolete, as the Americans were designing an automatic unmanned missile defense system... The choice was to join NORAD or fend for ourselves against Russia. We can only debate what the best choice was because we're still here...


Canada could have retained the fighter industry and Avro. It was the idiot Diefenbaker, who had no vision of what it meant to have a high tech aircraft (in it's day) and he was convinced by Pres. Kennedy to scrap the fighter aircraft program in favor of the cheaper Bomarc missiles that could be deployed in Canada's far north against any possible Russian (nuclear) bomber invasion. The Bomarcs, in the end proved to be unreliable at the cold temperatures of Churchill Manitoba and other such launch sites, and were scrapped eventually..so we ended up ..what?...buying F18s from the Americans, because we dismantled our own fighter jet manufacturing infrastructure. Most of the aircraft engineers and tool& die makers went to work for McDonnell -Douglas.
who..very interestly developed the F18 later on..that Canada ended up buying. 

a VERY STUPID decision from then the PC gov't under Deif the Cheif..but at least now..Harper and the PCs..see that they simply can't afford the US stealth technology.

http://www.lermuseum.org/en/chronol...nd-the-nuclear-weapons-controversy-1958-1963/



> Ironically, even as Canada was embroiled in the Bomarc controversy, the integration of nuclear weapons into its military was becoming more and more of a given. For example, Canada had replaced its CF-100 interceptors with the *U.S.-made CF-101 Voodoo interceptor.* This aircraft was intended to intercept Soviet bombers and was armed with the Genie air-to-air missile, a weapon that also required a nuclear warhead.


Duh!..so we ended up buying US manufactured interceptors in place of the Avro Arrow!

Besides..what do we need supersonic mach 3 fuel guzzling fighter aircraft to fly over our polar bears these days!


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

I think first we bought F-101 Voodoos from them and then license-built F-104 Starfighters and F-5A Freedom Fighters before we bought the F-18's. We have been very good to the U.S. military industrial complex. Certainly Canada had the resources to maintain a fighter aircraft industry in the first 30 years after WW2. The decision was a political one and in retrospect was probably not a good one. The bang for buck in high tech industries with respect to good jobs and beneficial spin offs is pretty high. If a country as small as Sweden can maintain a fighter program then Canada certainly could have. Our loss...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

uptoolate said:


> I think first we bought F-101 Voodoos from them and then license-built F-104 Starfighters and F-5A Freedom Fighters before we bought the F-18's. We have been very good to the U.S. military industrial complex. Certainly Canada had the resources to maintain a fighter aircraft industry in the first 30 years after WW2. The decision was a political one and in retrospect was probably not a good one. The bang for buck in high tech industries with respect to good jobs and beneficial spin offs is pretty high. If a country as small as Sweden can maintain a fighter program then Canada certainly could have. Our loss...


Don't know much about the F-101 Voodoos, but the F104/CF104 starfighter was termed "widow maker" because if the high incidents of crashes and pilots being killed.
Another "bright" idea from the US military-industrial complex that didn't work out too well for Canada.



> Over the course of the aircraft's lifespan in service, some 110 were lost to accidents, earning the CF-104 the nickname of "Widowmaker" or "Lawn Dart" in the air force.[8]


The last real Canadian designed fighter was the Avro CF-100. We lost our capability to manufacture fighters..which would be just as advanced as
the CF18 by now..to stupid political decisions..seems to be way our gov'ts operate...for a piece of US made "sh*t"..we lost our self sufficiency.
http://members.shaw.ca/b.bogdan/Arrow/avro_arrow.htm



> The Arrow program was cheaper than purchasing the Bomarc, SAGE and replacement interceptors from the United States. It was cancelled a month before the end of the six month review period Diefenbaker gave the program.


*
The decision to cancel the Avro Arrow means $400 million wasted tax dollars, instant unemployment for thousands of workers, and a defence department turned upside down. Yet the leaders of the two main opposition parties do not oppose the decision. Liberal leader Lester B. Person and Hazen Argue of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) choose their words carefully.*

Hmmm..lets see 400 million wasted in the development of the Arrow (1 billion program) means that the Diefenbaker PC gov't saved us\
taxpayers $600 million in 1958 dollars...but now we will willing to spend Billions on a prototype that could end up costing billions more
in operating costs and replacement (due to crashes)..at $110 million a piece and climbing!


Stupid idiotic politicians..what can I say!


----------

