Ditching F-35 could hurt air force: MacKay

CTV.ca News Staff ^ | 1/27/2011 | CTV.ca News Staff

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

Ottawa must carry out its proposed multibillion dollar purchase of American-made F-35 fighter jets or it could risk causing problems in Canadian air force down the road, the defence minister says.

Peter MacKay, speaking at a press conference in Ottawa alongside U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, reiterated that buying 65 of the fifth-generation jets will help the Canadian military deal with "unforeseen threats" in future.

But scrapping the $16 billion purchase could cause an "operation gap" when the military's current fleet of fighter jets are retired later this decade, if an adequate replacement can't be found in time.

The development of the F-35 has drawn controversy both in Canada and in the United States. The Pentagon, which is the largest purchaser of the new jets, has aired concerns over rising costs and other production problems.

In Ottawa, Gates defend the program, describing Washington's "strong commitment" to the F-35 development program.

[freedumb2003]

A pig in a poke — the F-35 is a sucker bet.

[kingpins10]

It would not surprise me in the least to see Obama cancel the F-35 if he is re-elected for the sole purpose of keeping Israel from getting them.

If so, it will be under the guise of “cost over-runs” or “deficit reduction”, when we all know this project is a drop in the bucket compared to our 75,000,000,000,000 (yes trillion) dollar debt and future obligations.

[diogenes ghost]

So...Canada needs to spend $16B to avoid an operational gap.

The operational gap will exist for years, waiting for this overpriced, overweight, overdue, lousy-flying POS that may NEVER be operational.

OR...they could save a bunch of bucks and aggravation by saying "no thanks" and buying one of the many great fighters on the market....AND avoid any operational gap at all.

[org.whodat]

You got the pig part correct, the damn piece of over priced junk .

[cranked]

I call BS on MacKay..... =.=

[Andy from Chapel Hill]

About 7 years ago, I went on a guest tour of the F-35 facility in TX — the one where you can see the curvature of the earth due to the length of the building.

The folks I talked with said the F-35 was a pretty good junior version of the F-22, except for the VTOL Marine version, which is extremely complex. I got the impression that if they cut that version out, the rest of the program would do well.

[tanknetter]

The folks I talked with said the F-35 was a pretty good junior version of the F-22, except for the VTOL Marine version, which is extremely complex. I got the impression that if they cut that version out, the rest of the program would do well.

It's not just complexity (for the STOVL version) but weight. The plane is not expected to be able to take off vertically, but it is required to LAND vertically (this may change, as the Marines are toying with the idea of doing rolling near-vertical landings on the gators). Cutting weight means cutting structure. Cutting structure introduces the possibility of increased stress/fatigue-related failures, which is part of the problem being faced by the subtype right now.

The other option is to increase power (cue Tim Allen). Apparently the GE/Rolls Royce JSF alternate engine (F136) has significantly more power than the Pratt & Whitney one (F135) in certain flight regimes. But Gates is pretty opposed to the alternate engine concept ...