Its going to cost FAR more than expected.
If the Canadians purchase this airplane then modernization of the rest of there forces is no longer possible.
Read it for yourself below...
If the Canadians purchase this airplane then modernization of the rest of there forces is no longer possible.
Read it for yourself below...
The ASH F-18 is the right plane for Canada.
ReplyDelete- Modernized systems, cockpit, with optical sensor.
- Range out to 800 NM with conformals + 2 tanks.
- Enclosed weapons pod for reduced detection, drag reduction.
- EPE or EDE engines (power or perf...your choice)
- Easy operations and maintenance transition.
- Can actually afford 80 or more aircraft to replace current CF-18 fleet without destroying to the budget.
- Growler option for electronic attack, SEAD missions.
- Proven arctic performance
- Proven short airfield performance
- 1 seater/2 seater (...choices)
- 2 seater for future drone control
good thing that weapon pod exists in an operation configuration.....
DeleteAlong with a fully operational ASH....
By the way, estimated costs for the ASH are 75 million USD+, or 10 million less than the more capable F-35.
Canada will got F-35, why don't want to buy a jet that is outdated before it enters service.
Why does it always come down to the F-35 or the Super Hornet? Are people convinced that Canada would never buy anything else but 'Murican?
DeleteWe use Airbus A310 for transport/tanker duties, AW101 for SAR, and BAE Hawks for trainers... Hell, we even leased Russian Mi-8s and Mi-17s at one point!
The Eurofighter Typhoon would likely be an easy sell, its got two engines, plays nicely with the rest of NATO, and has the actual chops to contend with most of what's out there. Ditto the Rafale. Neither is a cheap aircraft, but at least the costs would be known ahead of time, unlike the F-35.
Ideally, the Gripen would be almost ideal. Lower operating costs, combined with rough field capability and a proven track record operating from the cold. Its biggest liability, its shorter range is being fixed with the E/F versions (40% more internal fuel).
@Doug, I think it's a matter of visibility and lack of information. From what I've seen, the average Canadian doesn't really care what the RCAF flies, as long as it's cheap. The superbug looks and sounds like a nice, simple, unpresumptuous upgrade to our current fleet. The average person doesn't know that it's largely an all new aircraft. Nor do they know that the Hornet that they're afraid of giving up, isn't really that great a fighter. As things go on, they're getting slightly more informed, but they don't really care. As long as we don't run a deficit who cares if our pilots can't do what we ask of them. I would love it if we bought the Typhoon, but until someone can convince the CBC of that, it'll be Super Hornets now, or F-35s after the election.
DeleteYeah, I'm not a big fan of the F-35, but the Rideau Institute is a far-left think tank that is generally against defence spending of any kind. I'd call their findings suspect at best.
ReplyDeletehave you read the report or does their position on various issues mean that you won't even consider it?
DeleteJon, all findings by anybody are suspect. That's why we have brains, isn't it?
DeleteTo be honest, no. And yes, partly because of the authors, but also because of this new trend of looking at total life cycle costs. I've heard that it's a fair assessment, but the attitude and the motivation bother me.
DeleteThe original procurement, was that 65 f-35s would be purchased for $16 billion. Yeah, more than a little optimistic, I know. But here in Canada the first issue that everyone seemed to have was that we were buying scary, aggressive, stealth strike aircraft. That was the first argument that came up. Why does Canada need something so...deadly? Once the panic about weaponizing Canada was whipped up, that's when people started digging, that's when the flaws started cropping up. That's when they started asking, for the first time in my memory, "what's the total lifetime cost?" Then it skyrockets of course, because then we're factoring in mechanics hours, pilots wages, upgrades in twenty years to stay current, etc. And this is portrayed in headlines through the country as "F-35 will cost 10x as much!" and all those who hate the "evil, corrupt, Conservative government," like the Rideau institute, have more fuel and are getting more attention, and money.
It isn't the message I'm against, it's the motivation behind it. It really bothers me.
Sorry, rant over.
The product support integrators for the F-35 will be Lockheed-Martin. Lockheed owns all the data rights, and Lockheed will have sole-source contracts to support F-35s wherever they are at so0 much per flying hour, or some such scale. You want to fly this turkey? Then you pay Lockheed.
ReplyDeleteThat should keep sustainment costs reasonable.
Alice Kingsley: I try to believe in as many as six impossible things before breakfast.