The Cellar - Canada got Smart

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Technology (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - Canada got Smart (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=32337)

Canada got Smart

Canada has lost patience with the F-35 boondoggle and opted for the F/A-18 Super Hornets.

Quote:

The stealthy F-35, 65 of which the Stephen Harper government selected to replace the CF-18s, has come under increasing criticism in Canada for its price, repeated delays and mechanical troubles. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed to reopen the competition during his 2015 election campaign.

The competition to replace the CF-18s — a smaller, lighter version of the more modern and heavily-armed Super Hornet — will now reopen. “Because [the CF-18s] were not replaced we now have a capability gap,” Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan said.

Quote:

Ottawa doesn’t have carriers or amphibious assault ships, so the only practical Joint Strike Fighter is the F-35A, the U.S. Air Force’s version. But since there are more options for a ground-based, conventional-takeoff fighter on the market, such as Super Hornets, Gripens, Rafales and Typhoons, the expensive F-35A is a less compelling buy.

Out of these, the muscular Super Hornet makes the most sense, as Canada prefers military commonality with the United States, and it’s not a major departure from the CF-18.

The United States wants an expensive, new, high-tech stealth fighter to penetrate modern air-defenses fielded principally by Russia and China. For this job, the F-35 is pretty good.

Yet Canada, with a much smaller population and defense budget, must instead defend the world’s longest coastline — much of it above the Arctic Circle — and the world’s second largest landmass. Much of the country is uninhabited with fewer places to land compared to the United States including the state of Alaska.

So the F-35 with its single engine is an awkward fit. Twin-engine planes give peace of mind to pilots, as engines can and do fail. The F-35 is also relatively short range since it’s quite heavy, but can extend its range with fuel tanks attached underneath the wings. But this would remove the plane’s embedded stealth capabilities — a feature Canada would pay a premium to have.

link

'Boondoggle' isn't a word you're likely to hear on this side of the Atlantic, but in the case of the F-35 I can't think of a better one.

I looked at the BAe Systems site to find that the company has a '13-15% workshare of each aircraft'. I wonder how they measure that?
It seems to boil down to manufacture of the rear fuselage and tail assembly, and crew escape systems.

The ever reliable Wikipedia says:

Quote:

While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion toward the development costs of the program.

and...

Quote:

Norway has estimated that each of their planned 52 F-35 fighter jets will cost their country $769 million over their operational lifetime

The RAF and RN have 138 of the aircraft on order but very little is ever said about delays and the massive expenditure involved.
Well, HMG wouldn't want to upset the long suffering British taxpayer, would it?
However much money we fling at the F-35, the US taxpayer will probably have to stump up four or five times our contribution.
Not an enviable position to be in.