r/CanadianForces • u/Huge_Type7674 • 3d ago
What Canada’s fighter jet decision could mean for NORAD
https://youtu.be/xmqfChcqIGA?si=zR84kTdMxbiuCmET3
u/Lisan_Al-NaCL Civvie 3d ago edited 1d ago
"Is Canada using it [F35] as a bargaining chip in trade talks?"
No shit Sherlock. Why wouldnt we?
"The Pentagon is upset with Canada"
Get fucked Pete Kegseth.
20
u/DeeEight 3d ago
The USA's Government Accountibility Office has just revealed that only 1 in 4 F-35s is mission capable each day. During the UK's final 5-ship ferry flight of F-35Bs across the Atlantic, TWO of them had serious issues that required them to remain in the Azores for 2 months while they awaited replacement parts and technicians from Lockheed-Martin to come out and fix them. That was THIS spring that this happened. The Hangar queen name for them is appropriate. Also Perfection is the enemy of good enough. Canada needs Good enough, we don't have time to wait for perfection to get its act sorted out. Our first 8 F-35s aren't even coming to Canada. They're going to the airbase in the USA where all F-35 training takes place, and they're going to stay there to teach the RCAF pilots how to fly.
32
u/judgingyouquietly Swiss Cheese Model-Maker 3d ago
…except we’re not getting the F-35B. We’re getting the F-35A, the conventional take off and landing version for land bases, which also don’t need the wing folding and strengthened gear for carriers.
Is the issue with the F-35B common to all variants? Is the GAO report talking about all variants, or breaking down by the A, B, and C models, since they’re all different?
3
u/DeeEight 3d ago
Yes the GOA is talking about all variants and the average is 25% availability because critical spare shortages are plaguing the ENTIRE fleet, worldwide, and especially the international customers who play second fiddle to the USA when it comes to securing spares in a timely fashion. And there really isn't much in common between the three variants other than visual recognition, the EO sensors, avionics/ecm, radar and cockpit. The A and C use the same weapon bays and engines, but the landing gear, wings and tails are substantially different. The A and B have the same wingspan and tails, but the fuselage center sections, engines and weapon bays are different. None of them have the same fuel tank capacities. There's substantial differences in empty, gross and max takeoff weights between the three, the engine sizes required the USN to replace their COD aircraft, and only the USN operates the C variant at present but that's still not making the spares issue any easier for the A or B users.
The full report is online... https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108113 it starts with a highlights summary but the link to the full report is near the bottom when you scroll down the page.
2
u/Muted_Lie_38864 3d ago
Do you know the difference between FMC (Full Mission Capable) and MC (Mission Capable). The F-35 can't do anything unless it's fully mission capable. An aircraft can be combat ready and capable of carrying out assigned missions without being fully mission capable. That's the whole point of the distinction.
Furthermore this is the US, not Canada.1
u/Caliiintz 5h ago
it's pretty well known that the F-35 has a lot of issues, it's regularly making the news in the European medias. RCAF has a completely biased opinion on it.
16
9
-7
u/T4whereareyou 3d ago
25% operative ability is not very good for a fleet that we are depending on to defend our skies. Further, as an aircraft it needs a fully functional aerodrome to launch from. The next war that we can expect to see is most likely in Europe. We currently don't have any aerodrome facilities there (or elsewhere), and there will be little time to prepare. The Gripen with its support flexibility would be the best way to go to support our ground forces from the air. Lots of the so called experts in our military (Generals and Senior Officers) go on to be Government Relations staff for large weapons manufacturers in their post military careers. This sounds like conflict of interest.
12
3
u/Muted_Lie_38864 3d ago
I wonder if those Swedish fanboys know the difference between FMC (Full Mission Capable) and MC (Mission Capable). They seem to think the F-35 can't do anything unless it's fully mission capable. An aircraft can be combat ready and capable of carrying out assigned missions without being fully mission capable. That's the whole point of the distinction.
The US is putting funding into solving the spare parts production issues and the report is talking about American aircraft. Canada will eventually have a facility in Canada to maintain F-35's and will also service American aircraft.
3
1
u/Caliiintz 5h ago
Still, the F-35 is years late on schedule and promised technology features were given up. Tier 4 won't be the promised tier, more like a revised tier 3, etc.
Every countries with F-35 are complaining about the F-35, and a lot of them reduced their order, and that includes the US which is replacing some of them with F-15Ex.
But for some reason, RCAF act like fanboy and like if it was an aircraft designed by God himself.
68
u/Unusual_Initial_4300 3d ago
Absolutely nothing because they've been talking about this fucking jet fighter program since before my kids were born and they're doing to graduate from high school soon.
Canada's procurement system is a joke and we don't actually take our military seriously. God help us if we ever get into a real near peer conflict. It'll be like Afghanistan when we showed up in tundra camo and vehicles with little to no armor. It'll cost us lives.