Thucydides wrote:Former aircraft companies still exist, and still make fairly complex things (often moving into related aerospace products like rockets, satellites or space systems), so the complexity argument is not all there is to this.
Not ALL of course, but it is one BIG part of it.
And there´s a Grand Canyon separating the level of ability a company need to design and produce a fighter today and 50 years ago, much less century ago.
And being able to make complex items is not the same as being able to make military aircraft.
Thucydides wrote:The market is simply too narrow when there is only one buyer (and when that buyer can exert various pressures on the sellers through taxes, regulation, the threat of lawsuits etc., then the various price setting mechanisms of the marketplace totally break down).
Say WHAT? Are you trying to be sarcastic and not doing a very good job or something?
Defence contractors are among the most pampered companies you can find. Most commercial companies in other business can only DREAM of getting that kind of money for the job done or the conditions commonly used.
In almost any other sector, a company trying to do business like in the defence sector, it goes bankrupt.
And where did you get the idea of "only one buyer" from? Do a count on how many nations use F-16s for example? Heck, even Gripen has a halfdozen buyers.
Thucydides wrote:As for the CF-35, the pause in the purchase is to accommodate various political objectives by the current government, including taking a contentious issue off the table before an election and to achieve the balanced budget by 2015 going into the election.
No kidding! There was even a serious suggestion to do an updated version of the CF-105 Arrow, because even with pessimistic accounting, they figured out that doing that would still be CHEAPER than getting the same number of F-35s. Despite the Arrow being a BIG-ass plane.
And of course Harper is getting anxious about votes, just in case his attempts at fixing elections doesn´t work out, he might actually need some real votes.
Thucydides wrote:Since there is only one Gen 5 design on the market (for obvious reasons no one at RCAF headquarters will suggest shopping for Chinese or Russian aircraft), the answer is preordained.
That´s complete and utter bullshit.
Do you even realise how that marketing ploy about "5th generation" was made up?
A certain company looked at what in theory separated it´s next fighter from the competition and marketed that as the things that would identify the hypothetical 5th generation fighter.
"5th generation" is a marketing toy with ZERO actual value. If there was any actual thought behind the concept, then it might have some value, but there isn´t, it was just a list of stuff "we have but they don´t", and didn´t even take into regard wether those fun little gizmo´s and niceties were even relevant, or wether there were any countermeasures against them.
And that´s before we start looking at the REAL facts about the F-35.
It can either be stealthy, or it can be a warplane.
It´s design is optimised for supersonic flight, speeds that it can´t reach while rigged for fighting.
If both planes have standard air to air warload, even an F-16 can outturn the F-35. So much for next generation maneuverability.
F-16 out-accelerates it at comparable warloads.
Its radar is anemic to the point of ridicule, because noone took the time to realise that, maybe having a powerful radar for whenever you actually use the radar, might be a good idea?
And the reason for not using the radar too much is because it´s supposed to be stealthy. And it is stealthy, compared to an F-4. As long as it carries NOTHING externally that is. And without external tanks, it´s too short ranged to be good for much. And without external weapons, it can´t carry enough AAWs to guarantee a kill against another modern fighter, or enough bombs to be more use than an F-117, which was a LOT more stealthy in the meantime.
Thucydides wrote:For all practical purposes the CF-35 is going to be the next fighter for the RCAF unless there is some drastic outside event, like Lockheed-Martin going bankrupt or the F-35 program totally failing.
I think you greatly underestimate the issues.
Harpers brownnosing is the only thing that keeps it as close to a deal as it is right now.
And it´s not remotely settled yet.
Thucydides wrote:None of the 1970 and 80 vintage designs like the Gripon or Typhoon have the capabilities the RCAF wants or needs
Oh yean like how they want a twin engine machine, NOT like the F-35?
Or how they originally joined the project because they wanted an AFFORDABLE fighter?
When they can SERIOUSLY market the Arrow as being cheaper per flight hour, a plane that is massively bigger, and more EFFECTIVE, even if built in original configuration, then there are some serious problems.
And capabilities? The Typhoon is a better plane(aside from it being a working system and the F-35 isn´t), and once simulations have started using REAL world values for the F-35, well, it becomes comical.
Zeroload F-35s can evade getting killed by Typhoons, but that´s about it.
Especially comical considering the Typhoon is much cheaper to fly and may very well end up cheaper to buy as well.
And Gripen only makes the equation look ever worse, because it potentially costs as little as 1/10th per flight hour as the F-35, while kicking its behind quite thoroughly in everything but hauling bombloads.
Even the original -A model shreds the F-35 in air combat. And the Gripen-NG by all accounts will have good enough "anti-stealth" sensors that most of that advantage is lost.
And if they ever go through with the full radar upgrade for the C/D models, well...
And you don´t even want to know what a couple of F-15s does to a flight of F-35s.
Because that´s the sad fact, the F-35 is NOT a fighter, it´s a glorified bombtruck. It´s not even a good one.
Funny thing about stealth you know, it is a lot less useful when everyone knows about it, and have their own electronics that can compensate for it.
And at that point, the F-35 can´t see it´s targets at long range, it can´t outrun them, can´t outmaneuver them, isn´t stealthy enough to stand out against "vintage" fighters (and how stupid is it to call them that?), doesn´t have enough weapons to last beyond a one-shot...
While costing more than the far more capable Typhoon.
Only idiots wants to buy the F-35 today. If it gets a THOROUGH overhaul in the next 10 years, then there may be SOME reason to buy it later, but i doubt it.
Unless something drastic happens, the Gripen will last decently well into the 2030s and quite possibly well beyond. The F-35 is already obsolete. Not because of old technology, but because it´s a failed plane.
In case you didn´t hear, some of the US marines would rather have renewed production of the Harrier than the F-35.
Harrier, based on the original Harrier jump jet from the 1960s.
