Canada: Weighing the factors in buying a warplane

[Ordie]

Buying a warplane – like buying a car – is about tradeoffs: versatility, status, safety, reliability, power against cost. Yet almost lost in the raucous debate over whether the Harper government should ditch its plan to buy 65 of the soaringly expensive F-35, stealthy strike fighters – or something more certain and less expensive – is a careful examination of the type of combat missions Ottawa will really send warplanes to fight.
More:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2388012/

[Maximmmm]

The F-35 is a great plane, what pisses people off up here is the way the bird was selected and the purchase handled. Hell even the military isn't all that pleased either. From what I've read 65 planes is the absolute minimum for maintaining operations at the same level. Worse, that number doesn't leave any room for bleeding a few planes to accidents or age as the original cf-18 purchase did.

We've pretty much discussed this issue to death I think, there are many great, cheaper options available, but there's not a chance in hell Harper will budge.

[Ought Six]

Bring back the Avro Arrow!

[Ardaingeal]

The F-35 is a great plane

Not sure if I agree just yet.

[BudW]

Buy the latest F15 and never look back

[SpudmanWP]

Buy the latest F15 and never look back

More expensive to buy, maintain, and upgrade than the F-35A.

[kerfuffled]

I just hope they don't let the same guy who bought the submarines from the Brits buy the planes. Just sayin...

[deathil93]

Bring back the Avro Arrow!

Avro SILENT Arrow

[Shadowstorm]

More expensive to buy, maintain, and upgrade than the F-35A.

How is that so? The F-15 would be cheaper with a lot of advantages with the exception of stealth technology than the F-35 for Canada.

[SpudmanWP]

Look at any of the recent F-15K/SG/etc buys. It's flyaway is north of $100 million. It's two engines cost more to maintain than the F-35's one and due to a low user-base, it is more expensive to develop upgrades for.

The only real advantage that the F-15K/SG/etc would have over the F-35A is unrefueled range. For that you are trading cost, situational awareness, survivability, upgradeability, interoperability, etc.

[Maximmmm]

Cough *get the SU-35* cough

[EStrike101]

We could hure USAF to defend our airspace...;


I thnk F18E/F is the best alternative.

[bravosixniner]

Why is no one mentioning Gripen NS? I mean Canada is a geographically large but demographically small country. The Gripen NS is attractive to alot of countries with small defense budgets. Obviously wont happen since Canada put itselfs in the JSF boat decade ago by joining the program to ensure Canadian aerospace industry wasnt left out. Or maybe SAAB can provide a big enough industrial offset....

[lander]

Why is no one mentioning Gripen NS? I mean Canada is a geographically large but demographically small country. The Gripen NS is attractive to alot of countries with small defense budgets. Obviously wont happen since Canada put itselfs in the JSF boat decade ago by joining the program to ensure Canadian aerospace industry wasnt left out. Or maybe SAAB can provide a big enough industrial offset....

Well I for one didn't know there were such a thing as a Gripen NS? But I've mentioned the NG (E/F) in the other Canadian F-35 thread but a CF-39 Gripen would be highly unlikely. Like the most far-fetched alternative I'd believe could be chosen is the Rafale. Highly unlikely, but still more probable than a Gripen. I have a feeling this is going to be all American, whether it's going to be the Bolt, the Super Bug or the Strike Bird or even the Sneaky Bird.

[Meatwad]

Look at any of the recent F-15K/SG/etc buys. It's flyaway is north of $100 million. It's two engines cost more to maintain than the F-35's one and due to a low user-base, it is more expensive to develop upgrades for.

The only real advantage that the F-15K/SG/etc would have over the F-35A is unrefueled range. For that you are trading cost, situational awareness, survivability, upgradeability, interoperability, etc.

A little over simplified. Here, no one has any idea what the true operational costs of the F-35 nor what will be rather than predicted and what its future teething problems will be (example F-22). Nor do we have any idea what the final costs really are.

The F-15 is also a better point interceptor which should be our main concern. It's 2 engines is a huge plus, making costs assosciated with operating them irrelevant by offering increased survivabilty in daily operations rather than face a loss of a whole airframe or even an pilots life in case of the singe engined F-35 when it comes to a malfunction.

However purchasing the F-15 is almost as unsuitable for our needs as the F-35 but not quite, the F-18E/F should be above all the lead candidate for us. It has 2 engines, admirable operational costs, low down time on maintenance and there will be little need in changing logisitcal and training support as we already operate its short runt of an older brother. It's not a great interceptor but its value for our loonie is unmatched. We are never going to purchase Russian no matter how hard many of you will dream for Sukhois or Migs.