Not an option. The last Ching Kuo rolled out of the production line in 1999.
The entire suplier base was disbanded long time ago and (almost) certainly the production tools won’t be in condition to restart without a fairly big investment. No one is going to restart the production line for the Ching Kuo with an order of 24 airframes.

Interesting, The information I just read today clearly stated that the C/D upgraded version , the Hsiang Sheng, is ready for production now….the upgrades having essentially been prepared already and prototypes made less that 7 years ago….and final decision on the newer version hadn;t been made as of yet..

Perhaps the info is wrong, but it came from an article from 2012:
“F-CK-1 C/D Hsiang Sheng
The ROC’s Ministry of National Defense (MND) announced that beginning in 2001, the government would include a new budget allocation for the IDF upgrade plan (as included in the five MND proposals to help AIDC). The five proposals were:

Upgrades of the AT-3, IDF, and F-5 would be assigned to AIDC in the future.
The Army Utility Helicopter, the Navy’s long range ASW aircraft, a helicopter for the Marines, and an Air Force medium transport will all be produced and assembled by qualifying domestic firms in conjunction with the foreign firms that originally designed them.
CSIST and AIDC will jointly assemble a team for the early planning of the ROCAF’s next generation fighter, in order to assess procurement methods and suggest concepts.
AIDC’s joint ventures with foreign firms or alliances with domestic firms will be given high priority in military aircraft service and maintenance.
In the future, the military will give responsibility for weapons system flight tests, electronic warfare exercises, air towing drones, avionics maintenance, and weapons procurement planning to AIDC, in situations where AIDC has the professional capacity that the military lack>[15] This is part of the seven-year IDF C/D R&D plan (FY2001~FY2007), which allocates 10 million New Taiwanese Dollars (NTD) annually for a total of 70 million NTD for both CSIST and AIDC. Initial media reports indicated that the upgraded IDF would be called the “Joint Countermeasure Platform”.[16]

In a 2006 interview in Jane’s Defence Weekly, former AIDC Chairman Sun Tao-Yu said that two new prototypes had been manufactured. The upgrade would allow the IDF to carry an additional 771 kg of fuel. In addition, it includes an improved avionics suite, retrofitted electronic warfare capabilities, and new weapons systems. The landing gear has been strengthened to accommodate the additional payload and fuel, but the plan for a dielectric radar-absorbing “stealth” fuselage was dropped due to concerns over weight. The project consists of three phases:

Increase the carrying capacity for the TC-2 Beyond-Visual Range Air-To-Air missile from two to four. Integrate the TC-2A anti-radiation missile and the Wan Chien cluster bomb. Plus 2 CFT (Conformal Fuel Tanks) also seen on the 2 newly built prototype aircraft.
Upgrade the mission computers, the electronic counter-countermeasures, the electronic warfare systems, the Active Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) system and the terrain-following radar.
Ground and air testing. If the program is approved, service entry is projected to occur in 2010.[17][18]

The development contract for the upgraded IDF C/D flight control computer was awarded in 2002 to BAE Systems. The computer has a 32-bit PowerPC-based processor with faster processing/computing, higher reliability, and better integration with avionics. AIDC said that the improvements of the flight computer will result in “a safer, higher-performing aircraft”.[19]
AIDC originally planned to launch the IDF C/D prototype on National Day, October 10, 2006.[20] However, the first test flight of the upgraded IDF was reportedly successfully completed a few days ahead of schedule in early October.[21]
A decision on production of the aircraft has not yet been announced. However, some media have already begun to speculate about project Hsiang Sheng’s demise, due to ROCAF’s recent interests in procuring Block 50/52 F-16s and some ROCAF officials’ lack of confidence in the IDF upgrade project.[22][23]
During the visit to AIDC’s Taichung Shalu factory on March 27, 2007, President Chen Shui-Bian witnessed a test flight of F-CK-1D, and announced that the upgraded IDF will be named Hsiung Ying (Brave Hawk), which signifies that the new fighter would protect the homeland just like the Crested Goshawk.[24]
As of 12/2009, 71 F-CK-1 A/B will be allocated for upgrade to F-CK-1 C/D over 4 years span for over 500 million USD, according to AIDC CEO, under Project Hsiang Chang (翔展), as AIDC and ROCAF had signed contract for the expected upgrade program”.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]232803[/ATTACH]

Has it all been shut down since then?…….. and no, 24 airframes wouldn;t be worth it, BUT IF an order materialized for further of the C/D version, maybe…along with, as I said, getting rid of the mismatched, pieced together they have now……reducing it to a two type F/A, plus dedicated ground / coin etc…….I don;t know…..

but from what I read it still seemed viable……..

Never mind…It seems like they opted to upgrade the A/B’s to a C/D level….and who knows what will happen to the Advanced Defense Fighter proposal….

Vnomad,

I didn;t say that any aircraft has a better or worse chance.. it remains the same verdict in the end…..MOST are replacing only a single type with the F35?….so the Netherlands, Norway, Canada ( if it goes through) are the only ones stupid enough?…..certainly every other Nation on the list has far, far more substantial air forces to start with……..BUT how much will remain AFTER f35’s come in?….will they drop other capabilities in belief that the F35 will cover all?….seeing as the Dutch F16’s are as old as the Canadian F18’s and the Norwegian F16’s are due to be replaced as well…..

As for Russian and Chinese VLO’s…they are NOT far behind…and they WILL cut corners that the West wouldn;t consider……and sorry, the Chinese are pushing out and designing as many Gen 4.5 as can be expected…as always, the PLAAF will no doubt conitue to operate many types…or they simply wouldn;t be designing and building as they are…..

The F35 cannot be the be all and end all…it MUST be a PART of a greater field….as I said, EVERYONE having an expensive plane in fewer numbers isn;t going to do the WHOLE a lot of favours…..even at a two to one loss rate, F35 users will not be able to sustain the losses as long as the “bad guys”…and sure, inflicting attrition helps off set , BUT bottom line is that IF the eventuallity comes about, the west on a whole is going to be beaten down by shear weight of numbers…..

In actual realistic outlook, the entire concept of the “NATO Airforce” that is trying to be accomplished is fool hearty and doomed to failure….by havi9ng the entire flying the same plane, lets say an engine flaw occurs, causing the entire fleet to be grounded…..what is left in other types, the F15’s and Raf’s and Typhoon II’s and Gripen’s may be all that is available …..as simular to what occured in 2007 when the USAF’s entire F15 fleet was grounded for two weeks and the RCAF deployed half of our CF18 fleet to Alaska to cover over….it was able to be done then, as dissimular types where operating…..but if everyone is grounded?……

The Chinese fielding “expendable fleets” may not be exactly right, but their more capable types that are being built en mass will present themselves well, and again their system and society are geared towards “acceptable loss for gain”…the west is NOT….and if it ever came push to shove, the Russians will be the same…

but bottom line, the actual chances of facing off against the Russians or Chinese is SLIM…the world will continue to bomb third world countries into oblivion, face little to no air 2 air opposition and fly around in the most expensive bomb truck ever, with out there being a real “Need” for all those superior features…

so again, IF the enemy either has NO ability to fight in the air, OR they have the ability to flood the air with lesser types MIXED with VLO’s, where is the benifit to having fewer F35’s, less to nil other types to support the F35 ( see F15’s, F22,s Raf’s TyphoonII’s or even SH’s) that have cost more than expected and operational costs that are high to prohibative……by loosing F35’s Smaller Nations loose the cost value MUCH higher than the Russian or Chinese ones that knocked them down….and have far, far fewer to be able to afford in loosing, again because of those costs.

I think the F35’s have their place….but not at the expense of loosing other types……..not every Nation is the USA or Israel ( seeing as “puchases” by them are subsidized by the USA anyway) that have volumes of choices and rediculous budgets…ask yourself this….

IF the Brits are SOOOOO convinved that the F35 is the be all and end all, why didn;t they replace everything with them?……why only so few?…..do they believe that the EF’s are superior to the F35? or did they see that having multiple types supporting each other is the better approach?…

Or, imagine you are a small country surrounded by much larger hostile neighbors that to no small extent owes its continued existence as a state to the professionalism and technological superiority of its air force…

For all the inane jabber people here post about what aircraft would be the most suitable for a small state seeking to defend itself… Israel has actually been living that scenario for every day of its modern history.

Of course as usual they just don’t know what you do. :stupid:

As well we also know that Israel does not now nor will they be operating a sole aircraft type airforce either will they?….with the plethora of types available to the Israelis , they have the option to pick and choose WHAT type of aircraft are to be used for specific mission…I would highly doubt that Israel will simply stop using what they have , what their doctrines and mission planning have revolved around and focus solely on the F35 for all missions……

so for a Nation that is perpetually in a State of hostility,, totally surrounded by unfriendly Nations that have pretty regularily shown hostility and are essentially armed to the teeth as well……….the F35 makes sense for them…..for those “slide into X Country and bomb their Nuclear facility or airfields etc hopefully undetected”….

The first F-35 squadron is scheduled to go operational next July. They are certainly still working bugs out of the system, but its basic performance is not in question at this point.

The F-35 currently has the capability to carry 4 internal AMRAAMs, but has the internal capacity for 6. It is also capable of carrying additional missiles on external pylons as 4th generation aircraft do.

But why?…if it has the Capacity, why wouldn;t the capability be made to match? I had realized that it has an external capability, but that essentially negates it’s stealth if loadout is all external pylon mounted…isn;t it then just become an average Gen 4.5 with SOME stealthier features ( granted the avionics etc are new….)

The Super Hornet is essentially a bigger Hornet with upgraded avionics. It has lost some agility and speed, but has gained range, endurance, and carrying capacity. The Super Hornet is an excellent aircraft and was a hugely cost effective program.

Boeing has advertised a variety of upgrades that aren’t yet funded. (internal IRST, conformal fuel tanks, missile warning system, weapons pod for reduced RCS, up-rated engines for speed, potentially the Growler’s EW receivers…) If a buyer stepped forward to fund all those upgrades the resulting aircraft would be second to none among 4th generation aircraft, but the price would climb significantly.

Interesting, Canada hasn;t operated a dedicated EW since the EW Voodoos, why uprate a newer more powerful engine if speed gain would be minimal?..are the ones in it now not optimal and the top ones available?……even still, there has been alot said on merit of having a substantially lower training / cross over costs and time frame, for both crews and maintenance…the costs for even upgrading the F18E/F would likely not fall far from the inclusive costs and projections for the F35 though right?…..and factoring in lower operating costs as per the navy stats.. Perhaps that may very well be an option for Canada, and it retains the fabled two engine issue

as you say, everything has a balance…but I still have a substantial trouble swallowing that , again, I can ONLY say for what I know and understand…Canada, the F35 is even a considered choice….I know it stemmed from the RCAF upper brass wanting the newest “toy”, who can blame them after decades of being ground down…well since the ’50’s…but the mess that has been made is second to none…and now, no decision to even open a Competition will be made until the end of 2015, likely a year or more to figure out and set up said competition, another year to accumilate and sort all the info, so maybe, MAYBE three to four years before Canada gives a tentative idea…at least as I see it….nothing wrong with the plane…just not what Canada can use to it;s advantage…like I said, we likely need MORE planes, say 120 , 130 GOOD GEN.4+, then fewer Gen.5’s that don;t quite do what Canada may expect them to do….

Top speed isn’t the most important metric here. An F-4 Phantom could go M2.2, again when clean… but nobody is wishing they were back.
Nope, it was deadly brute though…nothing could touch it in it’s hayday

The F-35 is an unfinished aircraft… no question. Buyers have to decide whether they are willing to put up with all the snags that come with a new aircraft or whether they want to buy a “finished” product off the shelf. Both approaches have merit.

True, both can be good I guess…Interestingly, ( I looked), Canada was offered all the info on the ADVANCED Super Hornet, which included upgrades plus a slightly “stealthier” RCS I guess…perhaps IF Canada went that route it would plausibly be in good standings…..( see: attached)

“Boeing stated that the “stealth characteristics” of the Super Hornet were ignored in Canada’s sole source selection of the F-35. In April 2012, Canada was reviewing its plans to procure the F-35 and may consider buying the Super Hornet instead. In September 2013, Boeing provided Canada with cost and capability data for its Advanced F/A-18 Super Hornet, suggesting that a fleet of 65 aircraft would cost $1.7 billion less than a fleet of F-35s. The Advanced Super Hornet builds upon the existing Super Hornet, which is an improvement of the current CF-18 Hornet. The U.S. Navy buys Super Hornets for $52 million per aircraft, while the advanced version would add $6–$10 million per aircraft, depending on options selected.”[

The drag chute is being paid for by Norway, illustrating one of the advantages of participating in a program like the F-35. (and it will be ready before Canada goes operational) Fitting an F-35A with a refueling probe would certainly cost some money, but it shouldn’t be that expensive given that the same probe is already being developed for the F-35C. (we aren’t talking about a clean-sheet design)

TRUE, but, the costs projections will be a huge deterent for the switch over of the fuel probes…..Interesting that Norway is picking up the tab on the drag chutes ( same reason I assume, icy / snow covered runways)….the time Canada lingers, it will get more clear info, good , bad or indifferent…as I said, it won;t be soon I am sure…

You could get a 4th generation aircraft for less. The Super Hornet in particular would be a value proposition… but everything is a balance of cost and capability.

Only time will tell…..

600 million in contracts right now, with opportunities for more. Canada invested Edit 160 million in the program.
https://www.f35.com/global/participation/canada-industrial-participation

The company I refered to is called “Gastops”…they make the special oil debris sensors for the F35……yes a contract, but like most, spread out over the entire production run…..in a fiscal year very few parts are actually needed even with spares included……certainly NOT enough to keep companies working full time on it..

See these charts that were already provided earlier in this thread:

An F/A-18 is capable of reaching M1.8, but only when it isn’t carrying anything at all.

As you add weapons and fuel for real world operations performance drops markedly. (as illustrated above)

The F-35 will be capable of carrying 6 internal missiles, always carries an internal IRST/targeting pod equivalent, and always carries far more fuel than an F/A-18 even with a centerline tank. That means that when an F-35 takes off it is essentially in configuration #4 of the chart above. (though the F-35 would have far greater range) That means that where an F-35 is capable of M1.6, an F/A-18 would only be able to reach M1.35. If the F/A-18 dropped its drop tank when it detected trouble, that would get it to configuration #3, where it could reach M1.45, still well short of the F-35.

The bottom line is that in the real world an F-35 will be faster than an F/A-18 unless the F/A-18 is carrying almost nothing, including fuel.

That all depends. Top speeds will be reached at relatively high altitude (as you can see in the chart above, ~36k ft), peak maneuverability occurs at lower altitude. (this is true of essentially all fighters, though different aircraft are optimized for different speeds and altitudes)

The F/A-18 and F-35 are actually quite similar in that both are optimized for relatively slow speed and low altitude performance. (Whereas an aircraft like the Typhoon is optimized for high speeds and altitudes.)

F/A-18s are still capable and modern aircraft, but they are at about the limit of what can be done with them through upgrades and they are using up their fatigue life.

In real world operations the F-35 is faster, far longer-ranged, and would accelerate and climb better under most circumstances. (The F-35 would also have far better avionics in essentially every respect.)

Neither of these aircraft provides stellar high speed/high altitude performance. Both should have good low-speed low-altitude handling and nose-pointing ability, but the F/A-18 is going to be stronger performer there. The F/A-18 remains one of the world’s strongest performers at this type of handling.

See for example this article about improvements proposed to allow the Eurofighter (an aircraft that already excels at high-speed/high-altitude performance) to close the gap with the F/A-18 doing what it does best.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/eurofighter-new-aerodynamics-set-for-2014-test-flight-400762/

The Dutch can do what they want with their planes. They are participating in the test phase of the F-35 program and have actually purchased an early production aircraft to do so. Like many other users they will also choose to conduct training in the US where there is a larger training infrastructure, not to mention better weather…

OK, this is what catches me every time…..and even you said it……”The F-35 will be capable…”…and that is an issue….is not that really saying that people THINK it will do these things?…but in all honesty it hasn’t done those things at all?…or yet?

And again, I completely understand that the avionics in a BRAND NEW plane are better than a 25 year old one, even with upgrades..BUT to quote you ” In real world operations the F-35 is….”, yet there are NO real world statistics available for a plane that is still in testing phase…..and again doesn;t that make so many things fall under “best guess / expected” than IT DOES?…….

Now I have noticed that you have mentioned SIX 6 missiles in the Internal Bays, yet I have never seen that referenced, only TWO pylons in each bay for a total of FOUR internal missiles, so what is the “truth”?…..

I also completely understand that the CF188 is a dynasty plane…..it is old, it is a Carrier based design and incorporates alot of heavy duty structure and landing gear ( which Canada has claimed to be of importance and help with poor landing strips, heavy snow etc)…., and as the newer F18E/F is also a heavy weight Carrier based design, even with newer, more powerful, better efficiency engines, nwere, better avionics, it is has a performance not much better than the CF188, correct?…..anyway, there is still substantial concern in Canada that the F35 simply doesn;t , won;t and can’t fit our requirements…..chief amongst them being the costs to buy then operate / maintain…… for FEWER planes than we struggle with now, and our severely limited airfields in the far north will NOT support F35 use.

Long and short of things , I see things like this……we currently use a plane that by your own addmission is still decent and viable…for a HUGE cost increase we get a plane that carries more fuel…..BUT that said plane, by your own statement is ONLY MACH .3 faster than our 25 year old CF188’s, it has UNTRIED and uncertain stats, any F35 that Canada would use will cost HUGE amounts extra just for a A2A fueling system compatable with our current tankers, and will need to wait on development and testing of an as of yet NOT developed Drag Chute and system, ( for snow packed airfield landings etc) that will no doubt be far down the line in priorities…and a lower altitude / lower level speed where again you have stated you figure the CF188 will be superior?…correct?…so WHY should this be considered a better plane than the 25 year old one we have?……it is NOT OUTSTANDINGLY better in performance, it has many questions that need more testing and proving and implimentation, and although it is NEW, it has brand new avionics that are no doubt far superior to 25 yrs ago, the cost is way way to high for what Canada needs…..in all honesty, we would do better with MORE actual airplanes of a Gen4.5 that better meet our costs, operational needs and expectations I guess…….

SEE, now I can understand that the Dutch volunteered to stay as part of the testing…..otherwise it made no sense at all…..and for sure the weather is better in desert climates……