F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[4Tran]

I don't think the statistics bare that out. There are also examples like the F-14 that completely throw a wrench in such claims.
The F-14 is proof that the F-16 is better off with 1 good engine than the Tomcat was with 2 poor engines.

I think that it really depends on how you're planning to use the plane. The USN would much prefer that its carrier based aircraft have two engines, hence it doesn't seem to like the F-35 all that much.

From the limited research I've done the price escalation is from inflation, currency fluctuations and infrastructure costs (which have been put off again and again) and would affect any other aircraft Canada purchased as well.
Every Time Canada has decided to try and save a penny on F-35 they lose a pound later; its uncanny. Australia has replaced their F-18s, sold some old F-18s to Canada, and completed purchase on 72 F-35s. meanwhile Canada bought old Australian F-18s, paid to upgrade more CF-18s and is watching prices skyrocket after finally purchaseing 16 F-35s and has not yet had a single delivery.
I wonder if there is a lesson there...
just kidding, Canada is once again reviewing the F-35 decision, just like they have been doing the last 15 years straight.
its a complete self-inflicted fiasco that makes the "Cadillac helicopters" silliness look like child's play.

It's not all bad. If Canada buys the F-35 later then they might get the Block 4 models which should be significantly better than the older ones. Besides, the purchase price of the F-35 is probably going to be a lot smaller than its lifetime operating cost as that's how Lockheed Martin will be getting most of their money.

Canada's fighter situation is compounded by the F-35 not being a particularly good fit to begin with. Canada's primary need to patrol it's super long Arctic coast. And for that purpose, the ideal fighter is a twin-engine plane with a very long range. Stealth and strike capabilities are nice to have, but not particularly important requirements. The problem is that there aren't all that many fighters on the market that fits the bill. The Gripen only has one engine, the Rafale is too expensive, and buying Typhoons at this time doesn't seem like a great idea. I'd joke and say that Canada should look into the J-16 and J-35, but NORAD integration is necessary so even those planes won't work.

 

[vincent]

I think that it really depends on how you're planning to use the plane. The USN would much prefer that its carrier based aircraft have two engines, hence it doesn't seem to like the F-35 all that much.


It's not all bad. If Canada buys the F-35 later then they might get the Block 4 models which should be significantly better than the older ones. Besides, the purchase price of the F-35 is probably going to be a lot smaller than its lifetime operating cost as that's how Lockheed Martin will be getting most of their money.

Canada's fighter situation is compounded by the F-35 not being a particularly good fit to begin with. Canada's primary need to patrol it's super long Arctic coast. And for that purpose, the ideal fighter is a twin-engine plane with a very long range. Stealth and strike capabilities are nice to have, but not particularly important requirements. The problem is that there aren't all that many fighters on the market that fits the bill. The Gripen only has one engine, the Rafale is too expensive, and buying Typhoons at this time doesn't seem like a great idea. I'd joke and say that Canada should look into the J-16 and J-35, but NORAD integration is necessary so even those planes won't work.

F-35 is another waste of money. Who wants to bomb Canada? Any country other than the US that might violate our airspace is doing it to get to the US. Again, the Americans have to defend our airspace regardless.