More spin from the trade-press enablers of a bad idea.
Not mentioned in the article is that early on, the F-35 was sold to the gullible as being 20 percent less than an F-16 for operations and sustainment. This would be great news if it were true.
Today for the U.S. it can be expected that the F-35 will cost twice as much to operate and sustain than a classic Hornet. Maybe more since there are no years of experience with an actual go to war jet.
Canadian Defence budgets are not lush. It will be difficult to go to Parliament and state that in order to fly the new aircraft, each squadron's annual budget used for flying ops will be double, or more.
That assumes the F-35 works as advertised. BTW, every other contender has a working high-off-bore-sight helmet-cued air-to-air missile. The F-35 is far from proof in this area. This makes the F-35 below parity in WVR.
As for airfields, Canada has some ops-contingency fields that are around 6000ft. This is more the job for the Super Hornet or Gripen and not an F-105 landing approach/weight/speed class aircraft with no proof of a working drag chute. STOVL say the F-35 fan club?
Range? Anything is better than a classic Hornet.
Since the F-35 won't be able to take on emerging threats, any other aircraft is better for Canada's needs. And, cheaper to own and operate.
3 comments:
One can almost hear the rationale coming soon before a parliament near you...
Well, um, yes sir, the revised estimates which are that the um, F-35 will be twice as much to operate; but very important to note also that it will be three times as effective and equal to at least 3 of the jets we're replacing!
So pleassse, give us just half our original order request and these operational costs at issue will be a wash. We'll even promise to only fly it on alternating months and train on simulators. We don't need to operate the thing, we need to build it...it's the jobs, remember? Sir?
The DND, CDN government & bureaucrats would all have to be "brain dead" not to buy F-18 Supers with conformal fuel tank capability and EPE engine technology.
It makes no sense to have an F-35 only fleet as a do all air force. It is unaffordable.
What may make more sense is a mixed fleet where planes are mission specific. Although this creates lots of operating and efficiency issues.
Don't forget the F-35 doesn't quite match up in the BVR missile department as well. It may have its stealth, but the Gripen, Typhoon, and Rafale have all been cleared for the ramjet powered MBDA Meteor.
Neither the F-35, nor the Rhino have been tested with it yet, and the F-35 can't fit it in its internal racks.
Post a Comment