Canada and the F-35

[f-4]

Given the new 'Cold War' between the USA and Canada regarding tariffs, do you think Canada's buy of 88 F-35s is now at risk? If I were Canadian PM it would certainly be one of the retaliatory 'weapons' I would use. If I were a Eurofighter salesman I'd be on the phone to Justin now... Discuss.

[STN RAMP RAT]

Everything in the Trump universe is fast moving, The Mexican tariffs were suspended less than 24 hours after being announced and before any paperwork was signed. Trudeau has already spoken to Trump once today and will speak to him again in a few hours. That’s not even enough time for the Eurofighter salesman to find the phone number let alone dial it.

[Yammer]

Hopefully countries will think a little more about sourcing their weapon sytems from a variety of countries.

[Fighterfoto]

Not just Lightnings, Canada are also buying P-8s. And Canadian companies provide components for all F-35s plus are the source of some of the rare earth minerals used in the engines.

So it’s a complex issue which will no doubt play out of the coming weeks.

[Jaydawg73]

I believe Saab were a close contender for the next generation Canadian fighter, with the Gripen. A fantastic little platform but lacking perhaps in the 5th generation capability and maintenance support intractructure.

My feelings on the F35, I think it has its place in a perhaps multi platform air force, such as the UK and US and indeed Australia. But to have the F35 as your only tool in the box, I feel can leave you short in a conflict.

As good as the F35 is, in all its versions, it has a very high maintenance hours to flight hours ratio, can have limitations when it comes to a knife fight in a telephone box ( however rare an event that may well be in the modern world), and the F35 is known to loose energy during certain maneuver's. Having said that, the whole idea of the F35 is that it would never get into such a situation, but I think any air force would be prudent to have 4th generation platforms to support and enhance its capabilities leaving it free to do what's good at doing. JMHO!!

[Malcy]

Didn’t Donald John refer to “Raw Earth” minerals the other day when he lost his temper after soiling his “adult” nappy?

[Jaydawg73]

Didn’t Donald John refer to “Raw Earth” minerals the other day when he lost his temper after soiling his “adult” nappy?

I think he did yes!!

[Philly1971]

I believe Saab were a close contender for the next generation Canadian fighter, with the Gripen. A fantastic little platform but lacking perhaps in the 5th generation capability and maintenance support intractructure.

My feelings on the F35, I think it has its place in a perhaps multi platform air force, such as the UK and US and indeed Australia. But to have the F35 as your only tool in the box, I feel can leave you short in a conflict.

As good as the F35 is, in all its versions, it has a very high maintenance hours to flight hours ratio, can have limitations when it comes to a knife fight in a telephone box ( however rare an event that may well be in the modern world), and the F35 is known to loose energy during certain maneuver's. Having said that, the whole idea of the F35 is that it would never get into such a situation, but I think any air force would be prudent to have 4th generation platforms to support and enhance its capabilities leaving it free to do what's good at doing. JMHO!!

I think you have hit the nail on the head regarding going down the single platform route. It pays to have a bit of diversity, from having one type grounded due to an incident, or from finding it has a bit of a flaw in combat. Ultimately if we all had the same brand front door lock, it would make it easier for a burglar to work it out, and I suspect it’s the same if nato all flew just one single jet. However, looking at the F35, and as a regular visitor to Lakenheath, I can certainly say they seem to put the whole reliability and maintenance issue to bed. Unless they employ thousands of engineers overnight, they seem to send up a lot of their F35s almost daily, and multiple times daily on occasions, so it seems like you can get a lot from an F35.

[Bilvo]

I believe Saab were a close contender for the next generation Canadian fighter, with the Gripen. A fantastic little platform but lacking perhaps in the 5th generation capability and maintenance support intractructure.

My feelings on the F35, I think it has its place in a perhaps multi platform air force, such as the UK and US and indeed Australia. But to have the F35 as your only tool in the box, I feel can leave you short in a conflict.

As good as the F35 is, in all its versions, it has a very high maintenance hours to flight hours ratio, can have limitations when it comes to a knife fight in a telephone box ( however rare an event that may well be in the modern world), and the F35 is known to loose energy during certain maneuver's. Having said that, the whole idea of the F35 is that it would never get into such a situation, but I think any air force would be prudent to have 4th generation platforms to support and enhance its capabilities leaving it free to do what's good at doing. JMHO!!

I think you have hit the nail on the head regarding going down the single platform route. It pays to have a bit of diversity, from having one type grounded due to an incident, or from finding it has a bit of a flaw in combat. Ultimately if we all had the same brand front door lock, it would make it easier for a burglar to work it out, and I suspect it’s the same if nato all flew just one single jet. However, looking at the F35, and as a regular visitor to Lakenheath, I can certainly say they seem to put the whole reliability and maintenance issue to bed. Unless they employ thousands of engineers overnight, they seem to send up a lot of their F35s almost daily, and multiple times daily on occasions, so it seems like you can get a lot from an F35.

The F-35, Typhoon, Gripen, F-16, F-15, F-14, Rafale, Mirage 2000, F-18, F-22 and literally name any type you can that carries BVR misses and the whole "top gun" thing becomes irrelevant, they would never engage in visual combat in a real World situation. The mass launching of F-35s daily from Lakenheath is just about keeping pilots in seats and nothing to do with actual combat.

[KevinJ]

What I really don't understand is Switzerland's buy of F-35s, with all the associated cost of new infrastructure for such a small fleet. Why would Switzerland need a stealth fighter when they could probably buy twice as many Gripens that would do just fine for their defence? With NATO countries like Canada and Belgium I kinda get them having F-35s to fit in with worldwide NATO detachments, but the Swiss?

[65thAgressor]

I have to agree I never understood their decision. The Gripen E would have been perfect it's got everything .

[Philly1971]

I believe Saab were a close contender for the next generation Canadian fighter, with the Gripen. A fantastic little platform but lacking perhaps in the 5th generation capability and maintenance support intractructure.

My feelings on the F35, I think it has its place in a perhaps multi platform air force, such as the UK and US and indeed Australia. But to have the F35 as your only tool in the box, I feel can leave you short in a conflict.

As good as the F35 is, in all its versions, it has a very high maintenance hours to flight hours ratio, can have limitations when it comes to a knife fight in a telephone box ( however rare an event that may well be in the modern world), and the F35 is known to loose energy during certain maneuver's. Having said that, the whole idea of the F35 is that it would never get into such a situation, but I think any air force would be prudent to have 4th generation platforms to support and enhance its capabilities leaving it free to do what's good at doing. JMHO!!

I think you have hit the nail on the head regarding going down the single platform route. It pays to have a bit of diversity, from having one type grounded due to an incident, or from finding it has a bit of a flaw in combat. Ultimately if we all had the same brand front door lock, it would make it easier for a burglar to work it out, and I suspect it’s the same if nato all flew just one single jet. However, looking at the F35, and as a regular visitor to Lakenheath, I can certainly say they seem to put the whole reliability and maintenance issue to bed. Unless they employ thousands of engineers overnight, they seem to send up a lot of their F35s almost daily, and multiple times daily on occasions, so it seems like you can get a lot from an F35.

The F-35, Typhoon, Gripen, F-16, F-15, F-14, Rafale, Mirage 2000, F-18, F-22 and literally name any type you can that carries BVR misses and the whole "top gun" thing becomes irrelevant, they would never engage in visual combat in a real World situation. The mass launching of F-35s daily from Lakenheath is just about keeping pilots in seats and nothing to do with actual combat.

I imagine top gun school deals with everything, from BVR down to the merge? However, while the merge would be least desirable, to rule it out would be a mistake, just as the US did when leaving the gun off the Phantom in Vietnam. It seems Russia also feel visual remains important otherwise why have they continued to add thrust vectoring and helmet sighting to the Su30 and Su35? That sounds like someone who thinks they can jam BVR and then dominate in the merge? Anyway, my Lakenheath observation was more related to the F35 naysayers who continually push an agenda of supposedly poor operational record and high maintenance ratio versus hours used of the F35. Based on how often they are flying, approx every other day, or even daily, it rather suggests those rumours are not true. I also doubt any of those are taking off with combat systems not working.

[Malcy]

Philly1971 - your POV on F35 - very interesting. You talk about F35 reliability and daily flight ops from Lakenheath - which operates F35A.

Sadly the UK didnt buy these, but a couple of questions for you - do you have evidence or stats re reliability of F35A versus F35B ?

Is the F35B a more complex and less reliable jet?

[Philwinward]

Did they ever come up with a cure for the “engine wear” problem on F35A. I believe it was caused by all the electrical systems fitted. They needed to draw more power from the engine than originally planned ,both to operate the electronics and cool them. This meant having less power available for aircraft performance. If the aircraft operated at its high performance capabilities for any length of time it suffered premature engine wear due to lack of engine cooling.
If not, does this mean that all F35A’s in Europe ( NATO & US) have to operate at reduced capability?

[KevinJ]

The real key to the F-35s success isn't stealth, it's the integrated electronics that give the pilot unparalleled Situational Awareness. This real-time data connection totally depends on the US allowing it, if a operating nation upsets the orange man-baby he could force it to be cut, rendering the jet useless. Are countries yet to get the F-35 prepared to take that risk?

[Jaydawg73]

The real key to the F-35s success isn't stealth, it's the integrated electronics that give the pilot unparalleled Situational Awareness. This real-time data connection totally depends on the US allowing it, if a operating nation upsets the orange man-baby he could force it to be cut, rendering the jet useless. Are countries yet to get the F-35 prepared to take that risk?

That one aspect that cannot be argued with, the situational awareness offered to the pilot, and to the bigger picture observers with its advanced technology which is outstanding.

Other (4th generation) aircraft are been upgraded to have interoperability with the F35, bringing them up to a similar, not as good admittedly but similar level of technological advancement.

One big factor, and potential issue for a country having the F35 as its only tool in the box, is its somewhat limited internal weapons stores, and limited distance without the need to refuel, to counter either of these, you could use the wing mounted stores, but this straight away takes away the big selling point of the F35 straight away, it's stealth.

[Philly1971]

Philly1971 - your POV on F35 - very interesting. You talk about F35 reliability and daily flight ops from Lakenheath - which operates F35A.

Sadly the UK didnt buy these, but a couple of questions for you - do you have evidence or stats re reliability of F35A versus F35B ?

Is the F35B a more complex and less reliable jet?

Sadly, I don’t get to see any action from Marham, just a bit too far and not easy to park! So based purely on observation of physical useage, I can’t comment on the A versus B variant. However, if I were to take an educated guess, I would say the B would be less reliable than the A. Although the fan is a fantastic piece of engineering, I suspect it adds a massive layer of extra complexity and wear and tear versus the A. The other aspect, I would guess the more the B is exposed to salt water, after being on carriers for a period of time, would possibly also effect the reliability?

[Jaydawg73]

Philly1971 - your POV on F35 - very interesting. You talk about F35 reliability and daily flight ops from Lakenheath - which operates F35A.

Sadly the UK didnt buy these, but a couple of questions for you - do you have evidence or stats re reliability of F35A versus F35B ?

Is the F35B a more complex and less reliable jet?

One thing that has been mentioned by operators of the F35, is not its unreliability (which may well be an issue but I'm not sure personally), but the high maintenance hours in relation to flying hours. It's a very high maintenance platform, (bit like the ex wife!) requiring high levels of TLC and support, and the required infrastructure to support that.

As purely an example, not fact, for every hour flown, an F35 would need 3-4 hours in the hair and nail salon until it's ready to fly another hour. That's purely an example, but you get the idea.

This has been mentioned by the RAF, and surely would have issues when operating in austere environments, another selling point at the time, for the STOVL F35.
Sadly, I don’t get to see any action from Marham, just a bit too far and not easy to park! So based purely on observation of physical useage, I can’t comment on the A versus B variant. However, if I were to take an educated guess, I would say the B would be less reliable than the A. Although the fan is a fantastic piece of engineering, I suspect it adds a massive layer of extra complexity and wear and tear versus the A. The other aspect, I would guess the more the B is exposed to salt water, after being on carriers for a period of time, would possibly also effect the reliability?

[Malcy]

Philly1971 - thanks