Some more commentary from Canadian press. While F models would fetch a higher price the FMS order covered only 8 F variants of the 18 requested airframes.

If Canada ever buys Boeing Super Hornet jet fighters, it would be better off with the two-seat variant because they would fetch a better price on the resale market, military planners told the commander of the air force earlier this year.

An internal defence department analysis, obtained by CBC News, also spells out clearly that the 18 warplanes Canada hoped to buy would not be kept once a permanent replacement is purchased for the existing fleet of CF-18s.

The Liberal government has been decidedly opaque on that point since announcing last year it was exploring a sole-source deal.

But the documents, dated Jan. 26, 2017, leave no doubt what would happen to the jets.

"Canada would be required to dispose of the Super Hornets once the permanent fighter replacement fleet was acquired for the RCAF," said the analysis. "Initial information suggest that the resale value of the two-seat FA-18F aircraft would be higher than that of the single-seat FA-18E model."

Past attempts to pin down Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan on the question of how long the air force would fly the Super Hornets was met with a vague response: "The interim fleet is there for the interim period."

Even though they would be more expensive to purchase, dual-seat Super Hornets would provide the air force "with greater flexibility," particularly in complex bombing missions, the documents said.



The entire Super Hornet plan is on shaky political ground because of the trade dispute between Boeing and Bombardier.

The documents, however, cast more doubt on the wisdom of the stopgap purchase, especially in light of last week's recommendation by the U.S. State Department.

Canada won't do business with Boeing while it's 'busy trying to sue us,' Trudeau says
Super Hornet deal still up in the air despite green light in Washington
The agency that oversees foreign military sales in Washington gave Canada the green light to buy both single and dual-seat Super Hornets and estimated the price tag for 18 fighters at $6.3 billion.

Critics have argued it is a lot of money to spend on jets that would be sold off after being flown for perhaps as little as a decade.

US Navy Flight Line crew on Super Hornets
A U.S. navy flight line technician prepares a Super Hornet for flight at the U.S. Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia Beach, Va., in January.
Defence analyst Dave Perry said he was surprised that resale value would be a consideration.

"We're not collecting used cars," he said. "This is just adding to the silliness of the enterprise."

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/super-hornet-jet-fighters-sales-1.4297528

If the government and RCAF were smart they would do what the Australians did and prewire some of their early build airframes for future upgrade to the EA--18G Growler standard. Something tells me that 10 year old airframes are not going to command much of a price on the open market. Having a future electronic warfare capability could make the F models attractive to allied nations seeking that capability.

Once again, Canada appears to be kicking the can down the road in defense procurement. First, the destroyers, then the replenishment ships, then the Arctic patrol ships, now the F35...what next?

In light of the Bombardier/Airbus deal how will this affect the stalled F/A-18 Super Hornet negotiations?

More likely will we see Canada buying the jets from Boeing or the U.S. government? (Import/Export Bank?)

bmacleod wrote:

In light of the Bombardier/Airbus deal how will this affect the stalled F/A-18 Super Hornet negotiations?

This procurement of new SH was just a total / monumental waste of money to begin with. A few weeks ago, "ThePointBlank" explained extremely well that this capability gap was a just a political invention by the liberals.

I just wish we just don't buy any interim fighters, and concentrate our legacy F18 flying on strict minimum NORAD/Homeland security duties (up to when wings start to come off...), and stop using them for NATO duties. Anyways, our NATO contribution would be way more appreciated/useful via an increase of land forces in the Baltic region

With the heavy bully / protectionist twist of current US administration (those 300% CSeries duties, NAFTA negotiations insane demands, softwood lumber continuous bullying etc), I see a possible strategic shift of Canadian trade toward Europe - were we have a free trade agreement in place.

Furthermore, with Airbus 50.01% equity in the CSeries (and its commitment to expand the Montreal area aerospace cluster), I now see the Canadian government siding / partnering way more with Airbus than Boeing.

IMHO, we just witnessed, overnight, a monumental shift of aerospace allegiance of one of the US closest ally. What a disastrous industrial turn of events (from a US point of view).

So, I believe a SH procurement in even more remote now than before. (The liberals will definitely use Boeing's predatory behavior as a pretext to escape that stupid political commitment of interim fighters).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU HAVE NO IDEA of the monumental perception damage Boeing created to itself, north of the border. By example, Quebec, which used to be the most US friendly province in Canada (we kind of forced the original US free trade agreement onto Ontario) seems now on a mission to cause the most damage possible to Boeing. (That's what I'm hearing, even in Ottawa, where I work) Just look look at Quebec gvt push to get the CSeries in Airbus's hand.

bmacleod wrote:

In light of the Bombardier/Airbus deal how will this affect the stalled F/A-18 Super Hornet negotiations?

More likely will we see Canada buying the jets from Boeing or the U.S. government? (Import/Export Bank?)

There are also used Australian F-18s but I don't think they 'd have enough years left to meet Canada's NATO/operational needs...

https://globalnews.ca/news/3796770/australian-jets-for-canada-experts-say-it-could-work/

And it's not like we haven't been down this road before.

10-12 years ago Canada was against the US-led Iraq war but still ordered US-built Boeing C-17s for needed strategic lift capability.

ThePointblank wrote:

And remember, the F-22 has about 1.7 million lines of code to do what it can do. The F-35 has 8 million lines of code. The F-35's simulator requires 10 million lines of code.

Lines of code are on occasion more indicative of bloat than anything else.
Look at Microsofts OS offering : what do you get : faster waiting, more bugs.

If you need your hardware to be criss crossed with excessive bandwidth you have not
understood the data reduction task that has been set.
( you see one aspect of that in NSA snooping. their solution to any new problem
invariably is : "store more info". That does not work all that well. They lack the brains
to understand what they store. Mana is in data reduction! )

WIederling wrote:

What a disastrous industrial turn of events (from a US point of view).

Too early to tell. It will all depends on how the Airbus plant in Alabama fares. If the Airbus plant in Alabama does well, then it it would be good for the Alabama and bad for Washington State.
If the Alabama plant doesn't turn out too well and is only profitable if compared to the high tariffs, then it is not good for Airbus but probably neutral for Boeing.

Either way, it will be 5-10 years before we can say if it is "a disastrous industrial turn of events". And to be sure, the technocrats in all parties involved have already played out the various scenarios before pursuing the current actions. So what ever the turn of event, both sides seems to have accept living with it.

Something as big as Airbus buying a stake in the C series has to have been in the works for some time and probably could not have been held secret to those involved.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

WIederling wrote:

What a disastrous industrial turn of events (from a US point of view).

FWIW, above is my quote...

Even if the 300% interim duties disappears, there is strong possibility the Liberals use this pretext to back off from that stupid idea of buying interim new SH. (I should hope so)

Canada being now literally part of the Airbus familly, we may have a strong economic interest to eventually buy the A330 MRRT. (its longer range might be useful here up north, with few airstrips).

This ecomic incentive might apply to other Airbus products.

The Chinook replacement might be scrapped altogether, due to financial restriction

P8 was not a real possibility, but it's even less so now.

But I agree, it's too early to tell.

WIederling wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

And remember, the F-22 has about 1.7 million lines of code to do what it can do. The F-35 has 8 million lines of code. The F-35's simulator requires 10 million lines of code.

Lines of code are on occasion more indicative of bloat than anything else.
Look at Microsofts OS offering : what do you get : faster waiting, more bugs.

If you need your hardware to be criss crossed with excessive bandwidth you have not
understood the data reduction task that has been set.
( you see one aspect of that in NSA snooping. their solution to any new problem
invariably is : "store more info". That does not work all that well. They lack the brains
to understand what they store. Mana is in data reduction! )

The difference is that between the F-22 and the F-35, the F-35 handles more raw data from more sensors that the F-22. The F-22 can only detect objects either by using its radar or via RF emissions of the target. The F-35 adds optical and IR tracking to the mix, along with data coming in from off-board sensors via datalinks, which increases the amount of data being processed. There's also a level of AI being built into the F-35 which allows it to sort and analyze the data coming in, and to learn and coordinate the various sensors if more information is needed.

ThePointblank wrote:

.... The F-35 adds optical and IR tracking to the mix, along with data coming in from off-board sensors via datalinks, which increases the amount of data being processed. There's also a level of AI being built into the F-35 which allows it to sort and analyze the data coming in, and to learn and coordinate the various sensors if more information is needed.

I am aware of the issues. I have done largish projects in remote sensing data acquisition ( hardware ) but also the distributed collection, reduction and intermeshing of diverse sources. You are telling me how to suck eggs For the task I've written a programme suite in the general idea of what your "sensor fusion" does today. in 1990-1992

What is against an upgraded Rafale again?

Two engines, range, payload.. stealthier than F18 and Typhoon.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

WIederling wrote:

What a disastrous industrial turn of events (from a US point of view).

FWIW, above is my quote...

Even if the 300% interim duties disappears, there is strong possibility the Liberals use this pretext to back off from that stupid idea of buying interim new SH. (I should hope so)

Canada being now literally part of the Airbus familly, we may have a strong economic interest to eventually buy the A330 MRRT. (its longer range might be useful here up north, with few airstrips).

This ecomic incentive might apply to other Airbus products.

The Chinook replacement might be scrapped altogether, due to financial restriction

P8 was not a real possibility, but it's even less so now.

But I agree, it's too early to tell.

Very telling statement that Canada is now "literally" part of the Airbus family. I thought Airbus was a privately held company that didn't have government largesse behind it. How could "Canada" be part of the Airbus family when it was Bombardier doing the deal with Airbus? I thought the Boeing claim of unfair competition with State backed manufacturers like Airbus and Bombardier was rubbish?

Maybe, just maybe there is something to the claim from Boeing who is a privately held company stating that the competition of a Bombardier and Airbus is nothing more than state backed manufacturing programs.

The level of hatred against Boeing for calling a spade a spade is amazing. Cancel the Super Hornet buy and don't buy upgraded Chinooks. That's fine, no one was forcing you to do that anyway. If you want to pass on the F-35, be our guest. The only issue here was a government backed jobs program dumping product into the US market illegally. Outside of that, you are our friends, do what you want. The more bickering we see from this on the South side of the border just shows us what kind of friend you really are.

keesje wrote:

What is against an upgraded Rafale again?

Two engines, range, payload.. stealthier than F18 and Typhoon.

The same reasons that existing 4 months ago when you suggested the same thing on page one of this thread.

As for stealth, the respective stealthiness of any of the three you suggested is minimal. Better than the previous generation but all still carry weapons and fuel external minimising the impact of other designed stealth features.

Ozair wrote:

keesje wrote:

What is against an upgraded Rafale again?

Two engines, range, payload.. stealthier than F18 and Typhoon.

The same reasons that existing 4 months ago when you suggested the same thing on page one of this thread.

As for stealth, the respective stealthiness of any of the three you suggested is minimal. Better than the previous generation but all still carry weapons and fuel external minimising the impact of other designed stealth features.

I re read the reasons for not preferring the Rafale and they seem political driven and based on less relevant assumptions. And the situation is not the same as 6 months ago. Trudeau seems to get along well with his France colleague Macron and with Trump too. Hopefully even after the Trump administration supported Boeing in trying to block BBD sales to Delta I guess. That was a clear signal. Trump trying the wreck NAFTA will aslo be met with moderate enthusiasm I guess. So the situation ain't what it used to be before. It's America First now, with all the good things and fall out that come with it.

keesje wrote:

I re read the reasons for not preferring the Rafale and they seem political driven and based on less relevant assumptions. And the situation is not the same as 6 months ago.

The primary reasons were cost, infrastructure, weapon compatibility and commonality with their primary partner. Those are not politically driven reasons.

keesje wrote:

Trudeau seems to get along well with his France colleague Macron and with Trump too. Hopefully even after the Trump administration supported Boeing in trying to block BBD sales to Delta I guess. That was a clear signal. Trump trying the wreck NAFTA will aslo be met with moderate enthusiasm I guess. So the situation ain't what it used to be before. It's America First now, with all the good things and fall out that come with it.

Trudeau himself promised an open and transparent competition during the 2015 election. Of course like many of his other claims he backed away from that in 2016 to embrace “an interim capability” but seems to have painted himself into a corner now the SH deal has gone to custard.

Despite all the bluster of Trudeau, there are two clear missions the RCAF must fulfil, NATO and NORAD. Trudeau cannot back away from both and given they have distanced NATO cooperation maintaining NORAD will remain the priority. France and the Rafale are not great NORAD partners, simple as that.

A little better stealth is not sufficient for a fighter fleet that will have to stay relevant for the next 40 years. The only countries that are buying 4th gen fighters now are the ones not allowed to buy F-35, or cant afford it. Canada can afford the F-35. This is all Liberal bullsh!t screwing over the military like normal. If they spend a dime on anything 'interm' its a delaying tactic and a waste of money.

I read an article in june regarding airbus replacing the typhoon. It brought up requirements such as stealth and other upgrades. The article also mentioned other countries flying the f18 (Canada not mentioned) were also in need of a new fighter. Recently during the cseries airbus deal there was word that other possibilities or programs may come out of the deal. Add on airbus calling Canada the first member country outside of Europe. Is there any chance airbus might build their new fighter in Canada? Being a member country Canada would at least be somewhat involved

thumper76 wrote:

I read an article in june regarding airbus replacing the typhoon. It brought up requirements such as stealth and other upgrades. The article also mentioned other countries flying the f18 (Canada not mentioned) were also in need of a new fighter. Recently during the cseries airbus deal there was word that other possibilities or programs may come out of the deal. Add on airbus calling Canada the first member country outside of Europe. Is there any chance airbus might build their new fighter in Canada? Being a member country Canada would at least be somewhat involved

New fighter programs take around 10+ years to get delivery, and that is being extremely optimistic. Maybe if they partnered with the Japanese X-2 Shinshin to get a head start... 7-8 years. Maybe. Canada would still have to spend $3-400M to either refurb the current CF-18 fleet or supplement with something else. If the Liberals think we cant afford the F-35... we sure as hell cant afford a stop gap fleet then a stealth fighter in 10 years that will be way more expensive than the F-35 (mass production will do that).

CX747 wrote:

Very telling statement that Canada is now "literally" part of the Airbus family. I thought Airbus was a privately held company that didn't have government largesse behind it. How could "Canada" be part of the Airbus family when it was Bombardier doing the deal with Airbus? I thought the Boeing claim of unfair competition with State backed manufacturers like Airbus and Bombardier was rubbish?

Maybe, just maybe there is something to the claim from Boeing who is a privately held company stating that the competition of a Bombardier and Airbus is nothing more than state backed manufacturing programs.

The level of hatred against Boeing for calling a spade a spade is amazing. Cancel the Super Hornet buy and don't buy upgraded Chinooks. That's fine, no one was forcing you to do that anyway. If you want to pass on the F-35, be our guest. The only issue here was a government-backed jobs program dumping product into the US market illegally. Outside of that, you are our friends, do what you want. The more bickering we see from this on the South side of the border just shows us what kind of friend you really are.

Oh com'on, the issue is that Boeing is getting as much government backing as the next guy and Boeing (40% of its profits are from the government) did a David and Goliath thing with BBD, David won.

It is the attitude you display here and Boeing has numerous times - just look at the twitter feet about this - that is giving bad blood here.

Boeing dumping 737-700 are fine, BBD CS300 deal, ohhhh nooo. Hypocrite and people are responding to that.

Oroka wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I read an article in june regarding airbus replacing the typhoon. It brought up requirements such as stealth and other upgrades. The article also mentioned other countries flying the f18 (Canada not mentioned) were also in need of a new fighter. Recently during the cseries airbus deal there was word that other possibilities or programs may come out of the deal. Add on airbus calling Canada the first member country outside of Europe. Is there any chance airbus might build their new fighter in Canada? Being a member country Canada would at least be somewhat involved

New fighter programs take around 10+ years to get delivery, and that is being extremely optimistic. Maybe if they partnered with the Japanese X-2 Shinshin to get a head start... 7-8 years. Maybe. Canada would still have to spend $3-400M to either refurb the current CF-18 fleet or supplement with something else. If the Liberals think we cant afford the F-35... we sure as hell cant afford a stop gap fleet then a stealth fighter in 10 years that will be way more expensive than the F-35 (mass production will do that).

Sure it will be expensive, but canada will be employing Canadians to design and build. There are other ways a twin engine could be less expensive, for example, single engine aircraft engine failure = loss of engine and airframe, twin engine aircraft engine failure =loss or repair to engine airframe not lost. If it is an uncontained engine failure (worst case scenario) the aircraft might be lost but still might be able to limp home. So yes the upfront cost of a new twin stealth would be higher then the single engine, but we would be less likely to lose airframes over time as well. Plus I have great respect for the Canadian air force and only want to give them what is best for them. Unfortunately the only viable current option is the f35,

Getting the first 100 CSeries delivered and preparing FAL in Mobile will keep everyone busy for the next few years. After full integration, cooperation will be strengthened using existing capabilities of the group to do big projects. Not only the Cseries but also with first tier suppliers, R&D institutions and the rest of Canada's aerospace infrastructure.

On fighters, there is a growing requirement / urgency in europe. The Tornado fleets need a ~ 1-1 replacement. 2 crew option for long complicated missions, good range, strong attack capability. The Typhoon interceptor can carry bombs and make sharp turns, but its not a Tornado replacement.

IMO the Typhoon was specified to stop the Dutch, Danish, Spanish and Belgium F16/F18's flying circles around Phantoms, Tornado's, Starfigters during exercises frustrating a generation of fighter pilots. The MIG 29 looked bad ass no less. Then they found out it had to be a bomber too & the Germans even tried to halt to program, so un-european..

Not sure what the Canadian requirements are.

Based on NH90 / Typhoon project I would advise the Germans to keep it close & strike a deal with the French, with other value adding industries / countries coming in as non exclusive second tier suppliers. Together with F-35 it would be the backbone for the next 30 yrs.

The Eurofighter was designed as the second tier brother to the Advanced Tactical Fighter (which became the F-22) to be fielded by the USAF in the 1990ies. It was to be more affordable and more defensive orientated than the ATF which was meant to fight over enemy territory (read Warsaw pact). Eurofighter was to handle the attacks on friendly territory using high speed and long range missile as well as a reduced frontal RCS to knock enemies out from long range.

And to be honest based on the experience of the European multinational projects, Germany should simply buy off the shelves F-35s. For once something that works and stays within the budget would be nice.

keesje wrote:

Getting the first 100 CSeries delivered and preparing FAL in Mobile will keep everyone busy for the next few years. After full integration, cooperation will be strengthened using existing capabilities of the group to do big projects. Not only the Cseries but also with first tier suppliers, R&D institutions and the rest of Canada's aerospace infrastructure.

On fighters, there is a growing requirement / urgency in europe. The Tornado fleets need a ~ 1-1 replacement. 2 crew option for long complicated missions, good range, strong attack capability. The Typhoon interceptor can carry bombs and make sharp turns, but its not a Tornado replacement.

IMO the Typhoon was specified to stop the Dutch, Danish, Spanish and Belgium F16/F18's flying circles around Phantoms, Tornado's, Starfigters during exercises frustrating a generation of fighter pilots. The MIG 29 looked bad ass no less. Then they found out it had to be a bomber too & the Germans even tried to halt to program, so un-european..

Not sure what the Canadian requirements are.

Based on NH90 / Typhoon project I would advise the Germans to keep it close & strike a deal with the French, with other value adding industries / countries coming in as non exclusive second tier suppliers. Together with F-35 it would be the backbone for the next 30 yrs.

Now that is what Canada needs! Does it have the same passive interrogation as the f35?

Hey guys,
I'm enjoying the popcorn!
To an outsider half way round the world, this Boeing versus Canada spat with an added twist of Airbus is becoming incredible: sad, bitter and I'm sure, fixable.
The Super Hornet has been a fantastic purchase for Australia. The F35 likewise will prove in time to be a fantastic purchase for Australia. The same could be for Canada.
What will it take to part out this mess?
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

thumper76 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Getting the first 100 CSeries delivered and preparing FAL in Mobile will keep everyone busy for the next few years. After full integration, cooperation will be strengthened using existing capabilities of the group to do big projects. Not only the Cseries but also with first tier suppliers, R&D institutions and the rest of Canada's aerospace infrastructure.

On fighters, there is a growing requirement / urgency in europe. The Tornado fleets need a ~ 1-1 replacement. 2 crew option for long complicated missions, good range, strong attack capability. The Typhoon interceptor can carry bombs and make sharp turns, but its not a Tornado replacement.

IMO the Typhoon was specified to stop the Dutch, Danish, Spanish and Belgium F16/F18's flying circles around Phantoms, Tornado's, Starfigters during exercises frustrating a generation of fighter pilots. The MIG 29 looked bad ass no less. Then they found out it had to be a bomber too & the Germans even tried to halt to program, so un-european..

Not sure what the Canadian requirements are.

Based on NH90 / Typhoon project I would advise the Germans to keep it close & strike a deal with the French, with other value adding industries / countries coming in as non exclusive second tier suppliers. Together with F-35 it would be the backbone for the next 30 yrs.

Now that is what Canada needs! Does it have the same passive interrogation as the f35?

Is this aircraft just a concept or is airbus currently in the process of designing it?

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
I'm enjoying the popcorn!
To an outsider half way round the world, this Boeing versus Canada spat with an added twist of Airbus is becoming incredible: sad, bitter and I'm sure, fixable.
The Super Hornet has been a fantastic purchase for Australia. The F35 likewise will prove in time to be a fantastic purchase for Australia. The same could be for Canada.
What will it take to part out this mess?
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Don't get me wrong, the f35 is a great aircraft, But I would rather see our pilots getting a twin considering our land mass/ population density, Australia also might have the same concerns...only difference is Australia is hot with crocs Canada is cold with polar bears!

seahawk wrote:

The Eurofighter was designed as the second tier brother to the Advanced Tactical Fighter (which became the F-22) to be fielded by the USAF in the 1990ies. It was to be more affordable and more defensive orientated than the ATF which was meant to fight over enemy territory (read Warsaw pact). Eurofighter was to handle the attacks on friendly territory using high speed and long range missile as well as a reduced frontal RCS to knock enemies out from long range.

And to be honest based on the experience of the European multinational projects, Germany should simply buy off the shelves F-35s. For once something that works and stays within the budget would be nice.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-11/the-f-35-costs-even-more-when-you-fly-it

By the time a Tornado replacement flies the F35 is 25 years old. Europe needs a next generation platform ensure defense sovereignty, just like the US. The R&D infrastructure and knowledge has to remain up to date. EU First here I guess.

The Tornado does not fly 25 more years. By 2025 the costs will skyrocket as the supply chain will dry up as Germany will the the sole user of the type and existing spare sources will have dried up with many manufactures moving on or simply going out of business. With spares reclaimed form British and Italian examples one might make it to 2030, but that is the end.

keesje wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-11/the-f-35-costs-even-more-when-you-fly-it

Quote from above article: "Fitted with next-generation sensor systems and designed to be stealthy, the F-35 is versatile but also somewhat delicate. A presentation by the director of the Pentagon’s in-house testing office dated May 8 and obtained by Bloomberg News (Capaccio again) said that the plane isn’t as reliable as expected and is taking longer to repair than planned. The presentation was prepared for defense officials and congressional aides. It explained that about 20 percent of F-35s are stuck in maintenance depots because suppliers can’t keep up with expanding production while also fixing returned parts. The availability of spare parts for the more than 200 F-35s already assigned to bases “is getting worse, affecting fly rates” and pilot training, according to the presentation."

I guess the F35 needs more time for maturing... Better let the USAF at it for now

CX747 wrote:

Maybe, just maybe there is something to the claim from Boeing who is a privately held company stating that the competition of a Bombardier and Airbus is nothing more than state backed manufacturing programs.

Are you pretending that Boeing is less "state backed" than Bombardier?

CX747 wrote:

The only issue here was a government backed jobs program dumping product into the US market illegally.

Again, are you pretending that BBD jobs are more "government backed" than Boeing jobs?

Or about dumping: are you pretending (by example) that the first 500 B-787s were not dumped (below costs) in the marketplace?

Boeing's complaint definitely has a look of total hypocrisy.

CX747 wrote:

Outside of that, you are our friends, do what you want. The more bickering we see from this on the South side of the border just shows us what kind of friend you really are.

If we don't accept to be bullied into total submission, then we're not worth you friendship anymore. Thanks for being frank. I just wish all Canadians would understand this reality and properly prepare for a better future, with real friends.

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

CX747 wrote:

Maybe, just maybe there is something to the claim from Boeing who is a privately held company stating that the competition of a Bombardier and Airbus is nothing more than state backed manufacturing programs.

Are you pretending that Boeing is less "state backed" than Bombardier?

CX747 wrote:

The only issue here was a government backed jobs program dumping product into the US market illegally.

Again, are you pretending that BBD jobs are more "government backed" than Boeing jobs?

Or about dumping: are you pretending (by example) that the first 500 B-787s were not dumped (below costs) in the marketplace?

Boeing's complaint definitely has a look of total hypocrisy.

CX747 wrote:

Outside of that, you are our friends, do what you want. The more bickering we see from this on the South side of the border just shows us what kind of friend you really are.

If we don't accept to be bullied into total submission, then we're not worth you friendship anymore. Thanks for being frank. I just wish all Canadians would understand this reality and properly prepare for a better future, with real friends.

I would think most Canadians understand what is going on by now. I am Canadian and can quite clearly see our "friends" from the south trying to use us with no intention of treating us as equals. The our way or the hyw attitude has to stop. I hope history does not repeat itself. In the past a not to be mentioned country with this type of attitude isolated itself from the world and caused great turmoil. LEST WE FORGET.

thumper76 wrote:

Is this aircraft just a concept or is airbus currently in the process of designing it?

At this point in time FCAS is just a concept as is a future European fighter. Europe has been down this road before and this has all the makings of going the same way. We won’t see any serious progress on a new European fighter until at least the end of 2018 or likely later.
Any new European fighter certainly won’t be cheap, won’t come quickly and will come at the expense of existing European fighter capability. For example, will France have the funding and political will be continue with Rafale upgrades while funding 20-30 billion development of a European fighter jet before they spend another 20 billion acquiring it?

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Quote from above article: "Fitted with next-generation sensor systems and designed to be stealthy, the F-35 is versatile but also somewhat delicate. A presentation by the director of the Pentagon’s in-house testing office dated May 8 and obtained by Bloomberg News (Capaccio again) said that the plane isn’t as reliable as expected and is taking longer to repair than planned. The presentation was prepared for defense officials and congressional aides. It explained that about 20 percent of F-35s are stuck in maintenance depots because suppliers can’t keep up with expanding production while also fixing returned parts. The availability of spare parts for the more than 200 F-35s already assigned to bases “is getting worse, affecting fly rates” and pilot training, according to the presentation."

I guess the F35 needs more time for maturing... Better let the USAF at it for now

What keesje failed to note, as did the author of the linked article, is that acquisition and sustainment costs went up because the US reduced the number of yearly aircraft bought while extending out both production to meet the total numbers as well as extended the time that F-35s will stay in service, increasing overall sustainment costs.

As for spares the F-35 is fine and the respective services continue to meet their targets. The comments by the “Pentagon’s tester”, Gilmore, is his usual bluster on out of date information. Gilmore has cried wolf for years but despite his claims on upcoming delays to software and IOC dates the F-35 program continues to meet its targets.

Ozair wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

Is this aircraft just a concept or is airbus currently in the process of designing it?

At this point in time FCAS is just a concept as is a future European fighter. Europe has been down this road before and this has all the makings of going the same way. We won’t see any serious progress on a new European fighter until at least the end of 2018 or likely later.
Any new European fighter certainly won’t be cheap, won’t come quickly and will come at the expense of existing European fighter capability. For example, will France have the funding and political will be continue with Rafale upgrades while funding 20-30 billion development of a European fighter jet before they spend another 20 billion acquiring it?

ExMilitaryEng wrote:

Quote from above article: "Fitted with next-generation sensor systems and designed to be stealthy, the F-35 is versatile but also somewhat delicate. A presentation by the director of the Pentagon’s in-house testing office dated May 8 and obtained by Bloomberg News (Capaccio again) said that the plane isn’t as reliable as expected and is taking longer to repair than planned. The presentation was prepared for defense officials and congressional aides. It explained that about 20 percent of F-35s are stuck in maintenance depots because suppliers can’t keep up with expanding production while also fixing returned parts. The availability of spare parts for the more than 200 F-35s already assigned to bases “is getting worse, affecting fly rates” and pilot training, according to the presentation."

I guess the F35 needs more time for maturing... Better let the USAF at it for now

What keesje failed to note, as did the author of the linked article, is that acquisition and sustainment costs went up because the US reduced the number of yearly aircraft bought while extending out both production to meet the total numbers as well as extended the time that F-35s will stay in service, increasing overall sustainment costs.

As for spares the F-35 is fine and the respective services continue to meet their targets. The comments by the “Pentagon’s tester”, Gilmore, is his usual bluster on out of date information. Gilmore has cried wolf for years but despite his claims on upcoming delays to software and IOC dates the F-35 program continues to meet its targets.

I don't disagree Canada could use the f35. But with the "one fighter fits all" concept I feel uncomfortable putting pilot's at risk. Australia has the supper Hornets (twin) to cover their vast unpopulated areas and the f35 for NATO and high threat environments. If Canada will only select one type of aircraft to do it all Canada should be looking at a twin. Might be easier or better for Canada to buy two types.

thumper76 wrote:

Don't get me wrong, the f35 is a great aircraft, But I would rather see our pilots getting a twin considering our land mass/ population density, Australia also might have the same concerns...only difference is Australia is hot with crocs Canada is cold with polar bears!

Don’t forget the snakes…

The single engine versus two engine argument is flawed. I have previously posted USAF stats for engine reliability on here and they clearly show there is no difference in reliability for the lastest generation of engines.

As for Canada being some remote and dangerous place, Canada maintains only four bases in the north as per below,

The RCAF, in conjunction with NORAD, maintains four Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in Inuvik and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, as well as in Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. They provide the necessary infrastructure and supplies to support the deployment of CF-188 Hornet fighter aircraft to remote locations.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-c ... north.page

These bases see no permanent deployment, merely a couple of weeks a year service when the weather permits. Only Inuvik is based above 63 degrees north at 68 degrees. These bases can only operate 6 airframes and have a limited set of supplies, they are not intended for extended ops by any stretch of the imagination. Aside from those four bases, Canada operates their Hornet fleet exclusively from Cold Lake and Bagotville, both closer to the Canadian/US border than the Canadian North.

Compared to that the USAF base at Eielson will soon permanently house 54 F-35s and operate year round. The USAF already permanently base a squadron of F-16s in the aggressor role at Eielson AB.
USAF F-22 and F-15 operations out of Alaska occur out of Elmendorf Air Base, at 61 degrees north while the F-35s at Eielson will be based above 64 degrees north.

The US is not alone in operating single engine jets in northern areas. The Danes have operated F-16s into Thule Air Force Base, at 76 degrees north and intent to continue operating F-16s and then F-35s when they arrive on short periodic deployments.
https://theaviationist.com/tag/thule-airbase/

Sweden and Norway, both operate over long distances in remote area that have airfields far and few between, just like the Canadian North. Sweden operates the single engine Gripen and has never lost an aircraft due to engine related issues, despite operating the same engine as the twin engine F/A-18 which has lost aircraft due to engine issues.

Finland is looking to acquire a new fighter jet in the early 2020s with the two likely finalists being the F-35 and the Gripen, both single engine aircraft… The USN has no issues operating the F-35C from aircraft carriers and this deployment is at least the same and likely more dangerous than operating in the north or in remote regions over land in Australia.

The other really interesting thing to note is that Canada not only has a history of operating single engine fighter jets (yes poor F-104) but the two finalists for the previous acquisition were the F/A-18 and the F-16. The F-16 was selected over the Tornado, Tomcat and F-15, all twins. The main reason for the final selection of the F/A-18 was the more mature A2G capability of the aircraft, the presence of a BVR capability and a better offset program for Canadian industry. Twin safetly played only a minor role and IMO if you gave Canada an opportunity to revist that decision I think they would go with the F-16 today for greater capability and a cheaper airframe to sustain.

Are you a Canadian fighter pilot? If so I did state purchase of 2 types leading one to correctly assume the f35 should be one of them. You can throw at me as many stats as you wish. In the end what makes aircraft safe is redundancy, I am a Canadian taxpayer willing to opt for a better more redundant package for the Canadian air force (more money). IMHO human life has value, and only want what is best for the Canadian airforce.

Ozair wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

Don't get me wrong, the f35 is a great aircraft, But I would rather see our pilots getting a twin considering our land mass/ population density, Australia also might have the same concerns...only difference is Australia is hot with crocs Canada is cold with polar bears!

Don’t forget the snakes…

The single engine versus two engine argument is flawed. I have previously posted USAF stats for engine reliability on here and they clearly show there is no difference in reliability for the lastest generation of engines.

As for Canada being some remote and dangerous place, Canada maintains only four bases in the north as per below,

The RCAF, in conjunction with NORAD, maintains four Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in Inuvik and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, as well as in Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet, Nunavut. They provide the necessary infrastructure and supplies to support the deployment of CF-188 Hornet fighter aircraft to remote locations.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-c ... north.page

These bases see no permanent deployment, merely a couple of weeks a year service when the weather permits. Only Inuvik is based above 63 degrees north at 68 degrees. These bases can only operate 6 airframes and have a limited set of supplies, they are not intended for extended ops by any stretch of the imagination. Aside from those four bases, Canada operates their Hornet fleet exclusively from Cold Lake and Bagotville, both closer to the Canadian/US border than the Canadian North.

Compared to that the USAF base at Eielson will soon permanently house 54 F-35s and operate year round. The USAF already permanently base a squadron of F-16s in the aggressor role at Eielson AB.
USAF F-22 and F-15 operations out of Alaska occur out of Elmendorf Air Base, at 61 degrees north while the F-35s at Eielson will be based above 64 degrees north.

The US is not alone in operating single engine jets in northern areas. The Danes have operated F-16s into Thule Air Force Base, at 76 degrees north and intent to continue operating F-16s and then F-35s when they arrive on short periodic deployments.
https://theaviationist.com/tag/thule-airbase/

Sweden and Norway, both operate over long distances in remote area that have airfields far and few between, just like the Canadian North. Sweden operates the single engine Gripen and has never lost an aircraft due to engine related issues, despite operating the same engine as the twin engine F/A-18 which has lost aircraft due to engine issues.

Finland is looking to acquire a new fighter jet in the early 2020s with the two likely finalists being the F-35 and the Gripen, both single engine aircraft… The USN has no issues operating the F-35C from aircraft carriers and this deployment is at least the same and likely more dangerous than operating in the north or in remote regions over land in Australia.

The other really interesting thing to note is that Canada not only has a history of operating single engine fighter jets (yes poor F-104) but the two finalists for the previous acquisition were the F/A-18 and the F-16. The F-16 was selected over the Tornado, Tomcat and F-15, all twins. The main reason for the final selection of the F/A-18 was the more mature A2G capability of the aircraft, the presence of a BVR capability and a better offset program for Canadian industry. Twin safetly played only a minor role and IMO if you gave Canada an opportunity to revist that decision I think they would go with the F-16 today for greater capability and a cheaper airframe to sustain.

I'm sorry the last message I sent was to you

thumper76 wrote:

Are you a Canadian fighter pilot?

No I am not. I have a reasonable number of fast jet hours though so have a good understanding of the environment.

thumper76 wrote:

If so I did state purchase of 2 types leading one to correctly assume the f35 should be one of them. You can throw at me as many stats as you wish. In the end what makes aircraft safe is redundancy, I am a Canadian taxpayer willing to opt for a better more redundant package for the Canadian air force (more money). IMHO human life has value, and only want what is best for the Canadian airforce.

I wouldn’t look to the RAAF as an example of operating two types. The current plan is to replace the SH by 2025 and operate an all F-35 fleet, bar the Growler.

As for safety, not sure why human life is an issue. It clearly isn’t an issue for the US, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Norway, Australia, Turkey, Japan, South Africa, Brazil etc who all successfully and safely operate single engine aircraft. If you want to fly safely then remove humans from military aviation as they are the cause of far more incidents than mechanical or reliability issues.

The other side of safety is providing the Canadian Military with the most capable and survivable platform they can afford. The RCAF overwhelmingly wants the F-35, they understand the technological and capability leap it will provide, especially over the 40 year operating lifetime. It is purely a political issue that Canada is not operating the jet today.

As a Canadian taxpayer of course you want to maximise the benefit to Canada. Well the F-35 has the greatest industrial offering of any potential future platform and has already brought over a billion dollars of work to Canadian industry. That is with 250 odd F-35s manufactured with another 3000 or so to come and that is before we look at sustainment funding for the next 50 years. The F-35 will also likely be the cheapest to sustain over its lifetime of the options available given the huge fleet size and global operator base.

Ozair wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

Are you a Canadian fighter pilot?

No I am not. I have a reasonable number of fast jet hours though so have a good understanding of the environment.

thumper76 wrote:

If so I did state purchase of 2 types leading one to correctly assume the f35 should be one of them. You can throw at me as many stats as you wish. In the end what makes aircraft safe is redundancy, I am a Canadian taxpayer willing to opt for a better more redundant package for the Canadian air force (more money). IMHO human life has value, and only want what is best for the Canadian airforce.

I wouldn’t look to the RAAF as an example of operating two types. The current plan is to replace the SH by 2025 and operate an all F-35 fleet, bar the Growler.

As for safety, not sure why human life is an issue. It clearly isn’t an issue for the US, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Norway, Australia, Turkey, Japan, South Africa, Brazil etc who all successfully and safely operate single engine aircraft. If you want to fly safely then remove humans from military aviation as they are the cause of far more incidents than mechanical or reliability issues.

The other side of safety is providing the Canadian Military with the most capable and survivable platform they can afford. The RCAF overwhelmingly wants the F-35, they understand the technological and capability leap it will provide, especially over the 40 year operating lifetime. It is purely a political issue that Canada is not operating the jet today.

As a Canadian taxpayer of course you want to maximise the benefit to Canada. Well the F-35 has the greatest industrial offering of any potential future platform and has already brought over a billion dollars of work to Canadian industry. That is with 250 odd F-35s manufactured with another 3000 or so to come and that is before we look at sustainment funding for the next 50 years. The F-35 will also likely be the cheapest to sustain over its lifetime of the options available given the huge fleet size and global operator base.

OHhhh your right... Sell me another one please.

thumper76 wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

No I am not. I have a reasonable number of fast jet hours though so have a good understanding of the environment.


I wouldn’t look to the RAAF as an example of operating two types. The current plan is to replace the SH by 2025 and operate an all F-35 fleet, bar the Growler.

As for safety, not sure why human life is an issue. It clearly isn’t an issue for the US, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Norway, Australia, Turkey, Japan, South Africa, Brazil etc who all successfully and safely operate single engine aircraft. If you want to fly safely then remove humans from military aviation as they are the cause of far more incidents than mechanical or reliability issues.

The other side of safety is providing the Canadian Military with the most capable and survivable platform they can afford. The RCAF overwhelmingly wants the F-35, they understand the technological and capability leap it will provide, especially over the 40 year operating lifetime. It is purely a political issue that Canada is not operating the jet today.

As a Canadian taxpayer of course you want to maximise the benefit to Canada. Well the F-35 has the greatest industrial offering of any potential future platform and has already brought over a billion dollars of work to Canadian industry. That is with 250 odd F-35s manufactured with another 3000 or so to come and that is before we look at sustainment funding for the next 50 years. The F-35 will also likely be the cheapest to sustain over its lifetime of the options available given the huge fleet size and global operator base.

OHhhh your right... Sell me another one please.

Just to be clear. I was being sarcastic!

Just to be clear... I was being sarcastic About the sell me another one bit. I am now questioning whether the f35 is the right fit for the job. You seem to have an attitude I associate with a certain region! I know aviation so your sales pitch does not hold water. Can I talk to your supervisor? Welcome to the real world!

thumper76 wrote:

Just to be clear... I was being sarcastic About the sell me another one bit. I am now questioning whether the f35 is the right fit for the job. You seem to have an attitude I associate with a certain region! I know aviation so your sales pitch does not hold water. Can I talk to your supervisor? Welcome to the real world!

Shame. I'm interesting in having a facts based discussion on the merits of any platform, hence why I have numerous times recommended Germany acquire more Eurofighters to replace the Tornado in that thread, why I advocate that Botswana don’t buy anything to replace their current CF-5As and why I’d like to see India purchase more Tejas and not acquire F-16 or Gripen.

As for your obvious and false claim that I represent someone or something here, I have been on airliners since 2005. You are welcome to review my posting history to see how I slant. Back in 2005 I was a strong advocate for Australia getting the F-22 over the F-35 but slowly changed my mind as more information became available, and my experiences allowed me to understand the fast jet environment better.

I am Canadian. Free speech is allowed, boy I really stirred it up this time!

Ozair wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

Just to be clear... I was being sarcastic About the sell me another one bit. I am now questioning whether the f35 is the right fit for the job. You seem to have an attitude I associate with a certain region! I know aviation so your sales pitch does not hold water. Can I talk to your supervisor? Welcome to the real world!

Shame. I'm interesting in having a facts based discussion on the merits of any platform, hence why I have numerous times recommended Germany acquire more Eurofighters to replace the Tornado in that thread, why I advocate that Botswana don’t buy anything to replace their current CF-5As and why I’d like to see India purchase more Tejas and not acquire F-16 or Gripen.

As for your obvious and false claim that I represent someone or something here, I have been on airliners since 2005. You are welcome to review my posting history to see how I slant. Back in 2005 I was a strong advocate for Australia getting the F-22 over the F-35 but slowly changed my mind as more information became available, and my experiences allowed me to understand the fast jet environment better.

Fact: I Have concerns about the well being of of pilots flying in the Canadian airforce.
Fact:I stated the f35 would be a good component to the Canadian airforce.
Fact:safety in aviation is redundancy.
Fact :I know aviation
Fact:I am Canadian
Fact:I want what is best for the pilots that are flying for my sovereignty.
Should I continue?
Being Canadian I will refrain from saying what I feel..I actually don't want to hurt your feelings.

thumper76 wrote:

I am Canadian. Free speech is allowed, boy I really stirred it up this time!

Not sure what you’re trying to say here? Are you interested in discussing this or are you putting your head in the sand?

thumper76 wrote:

Fact: I Have concerns about the well being of of pilots flying in the Canadian airforce.
Fact:I stated the f35 would be a good component to the Canadian airforce.
Fact:safety in aviation is redundancy.
Fact :I know aviation
Fact:I am Canadian
Fact:I want what is best for the pilots that are flying for my sovereignty.
Should I continue?
Being Canadian I will refrain from saying what I feel..I actually don't want to hurt your feelings.

What do my feelings have to do with this? If you want a fact based discussion I don't see where feelings play a part.

For the rest, tell us what your options are for the future acquisition and we as a community of people interested in military aviation can discuss it. We don’t have to agree but we can certainly try to understand the implications for Canada going forward.

thumper76 wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

OHhhh your right... Sell me another one please.

Just to be clear. I was being sarcastic!

Just to be clear... I was being sarcastic About the sell me another one bit. I am now questioning whether the f35 is the right fit for the job. You seem to have an attitude I associate with a certain region! I know aviation so your sales pitch does not hold water. Can I talk to your supervisor? Welcome to the real world!

Canada has already put money into the f35 program. I am not willing to put Canadian pilots lives at risk to lower the price per aircraft. That does not mean that I think the aircraft has no merit

Ozair wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I am Canadian. Free speech is allowed, boy I really stirred it up this time!

Not sure what you’re trying to say here? Are you interested in discussing this or are you putting your head in the sand?

thumper76 wrote:

Fact: I Have concerns about the well being of of pilots flying in the Canadian airforce.
Fact:I stated the f35 would be a good component to the Canadian airforce.
Fact:safety in aviation is redundancy.
Fact :I know aviation
Fact:I am Canadian
Fact:I want what is best for the pilots that are flying for my sovereignty.
Should I continue?
Being Canadian I will refrain from saying what I feel..I actually don't want to hurt your feelings.

What do my feelings have to do with this? If you want a fact based discussion I don't see where feelings play a part.

For the rest, tell us what your options are for the future acquisition and we as a community of people interested in military aviation can discuss it. We don’t have to agree but we can certainly try to understand the implications for Canada going forward.

I take the lives seriously. My feelings will get involved when I am getting the impression that I am conversing with someone that appears not to be expressing the same care/concerns. I will assume that you did not fully read my posts to you. What I stated as fact is fact. My hope is that you did not fully read my posts and therefore responded without understanding what I stand for and where I stand. Would make me feel more comfortable thinking Australians stand up for what is right. BTW purchasing the super Hornets for Australia's huge unpopulated back yard was a good move in my opinion

thumper76 wrote:

Ozair wrote:

thumper76 wrote:

I am Canadian. Free speech is allowed, boy I really stirred it up this time!

Not sure what you’re trying to say here? Are you interested in discussing this or are you putting your head in the sand?

thumper76 wrote:

Fact: I Have concerns about the well being of of pilots flying in the Canadian airforce.
Fact:I stated the f35 would be a good component to the Canadian airforce.
Fact:safety in aviation is redundancy.
Fact :I know aviation
Fact:I am Canadian
Fact:I want what is best for the pilots that are flying for my sovereignty.
Should I continue?
Being Canadian I will refrain from saying what I feel..I actually don't want to hurt your feelings.

What do my feelings have to do with this? If you want a fact based discussion I don't see where feelings play a part.

For the rest, tell us what your options are for the future acquisition and we as a community of people interested in military aviation can discuss it. We don’t have to agree but we can certainly try to understand the implications for Canada going forward.

I take the lives seriously. My feelings will get involved when I am getting the impression that I am conversing with someone that appears not to be expressing the same care/concerns. I will assume that you did not fully read my posts to you. What I stated as fact is fact. My hope is that you did not fully read my posts and therefore responded without understanding what I stand for and where I stand. Would make me feel more comfortable thinking Australians stand up for what is right. BTW purchasing the super Hornets for Australia's huge unpopulated back yard was a good move in my opinion

Sh#& did I just say that? Considering the climate (politically) in Canada!

Canada is intending to operate one type of fighter. That being so I believe Canada can only go with a twin stealth aircraft. I personally think that Canada should operate two types of witch one would be at least a forth gen twin (f18, rafale or typhoon). And a stealth with full passive interrogation. The twin to patrol the north and the stealth platform for high threat environments /conflicts.

thumper76 wrote:

Canada is intending to operate one type of fighter. That being so I believe Canada can only go with a twin stealth aircraft. I personally think that Canada should operate two types of witch one would be at least a forth gen twin (f18, rafale or typhoon). And a stealth with full passive interrogation. The twin to patrol the north and the stealth platform for high threat environments /conflicts.

Obviously at the this time the f35 would be the only option for the stealth. I would like to have our platforms integrated to both the west and European systems.... I know now I am asking to much! I would like the flexibility to use armaments from the west or Europe depending on world political climate. Sounds like a stretch but if the aircraft is to be in service till 2060 I don't think we could take less. Might be best for Canada and some other countries to combine heads to build fighter that can be a jack of all trades,, but that is getting political. That being said airbus just called Canada "its first member country outside Europe" but 10+ years is a long time to wait.

thumper76 wrote:

Canada is intending to operate one type of fighter. That being so I believe Canada can only go with a twin stealth aircraft. I personally think that Canada should operate two types of witch one would be at least a forth gen twin (f18, rafale or typhoon). And a stealth with full passive interrogation. The twin to patrol the north and the stealth platform for high threat environments /conflicts.

Canada will only operate one type of fighter because the military can't afford to operate two separate fleets of aircraft doing the same job, and we don't have the manpower to do so.

We barely have the manpower to keep the current fleet running; witness what happened to 433 Squadron at Bagotville a few years back (it was disbanded and the personnel transferred to 425 Squadron to makeup for personnel shortages).

Also, I only think of one CF-18's over the life of the fleet where having two engines was a factor in safely recovering the aircraft; the pilot got really lucky that time and the engine failure occurred really close to an airfield, and he was able to set down quick. Every other time where an engine had a failure on a CF-18, we lost the aircraft.

Also, other countries that operate their fighters in adverse climates where the chance of rescue for a pilot that punched out is extremely slim are more than happy to operate single engined fighters in their operating environments; the Japanese regularly operate their F-2's over the North Pacific Ocean, the Americans operate F-16's up in Alaska, and the Norwegians operate their F-16's over the North Sea and up over the Arctic Circle.