Milnet.ca Forums

The Mess => Foreign Militaries => US Military => Topic started by: Sharpey on March 19, 2002, 20:56:00

Title: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Sharpey on March 19, 2002, 20:56:00
OK, Military spending (or should I say not spending) is always a topic of discussion. On the DND sight today, they talk about Canada‘s planned contribution of $240 million for the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) project.
 Ok, have at ‘er, is this really important at this point in time?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Enfield on March 19, 2002, 21:48:00
The CF-18‘s won‘t last much longer, and we need something to replace it. The JSF concept is a good one - a multi-role fighter aircraft shared by multiple nations. That means we can do more types of misions with the same plane, and increased inter-operability with our allies.

However, dont get to excited - Canada‘s contribution is a drop in the bucket of a huge, multi-billion development project. Good to get in on the ground floor though.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 15, 2004, 12:49:21
I didn't see a thread on this subject.  If one exists feel free to move this post.

Canada may or may not see any of these beasts in Canadian service, but as has been noted elsewhere we already have a financial stake in them.  If we did see them it wouldn't be until out past the 2020-2025 window.

There has been considerable concern expressed, especially by the Royal Navy and the US Marines, that the JSF was too heavy to be able to accomodate the STOVL (Short Take Off - Vertical Landing) version they require to work with their vessels.  The USMC can work-around because of the US Navy's Carriers, but for the RN this is the only game in town for their proposed Carriers.

This article is Lockheed's announcement that the problem is fixed.  They apparently lopped 2700kg off the air-frame weight.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Although this is really dreaming in technicolour as a Canadian the availability of these aircraft as possible replacements for the CF-18 in the long-term does put the prospect of fixed wing air for expeditionary forces in the hands of the CF.

Interestingly, after Afghanistan - where the US couldn't get Tactical Air Support in country (fighters had to be based on ships or in other countries necessitating Schmidts long flight and drug-enhanced state) - both the US Air Force and the US Navy are seriously looking at the STOVL version for their own use as well as the conventional version.

I gather that both services had reservations about the Harrier because of the complexity of the aircraft and its controls and the fact that it didn't blend well with any of their other aircraft for conversion training.  The JSF seems to be trying to be more user friendly and requiring fewer special skills.

One other feature of the Harrier/JSF(STOVL) that apparently sells is that they can fly more often than conventional air.  I remember reading somewhere that this was proved during the Falklands.  That it was possible to land the Harriers in fogs and seas that would have kept conventional craft on the deck.  You can't launch if you can't land apparently.


Cheers
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Sam69 on September 18, 2004, 23:27:49
Interesting post Kirk - thanks.

As a matter of interest, Canada's participation in the JSF as a level 3 participant (don't quote me on that nomenclature) is primarily to ensure that Canadian firms have access to JSF contracts and secondarily to give us some insight into the program.

The CF does currently have an expeditionary fighter capability with the CF-188, as was demonstrated in both Gulf War '91 and Kosovo. I do take your point that the STOVL version of the JSF would be able to operate from more austere fields than the Hornet but you must also realize that the aircraft will still require significant infrastructure and support (bombs, beans, and gas) to be operationally effective irrespective of their operating location.

The CF's Hornets are currently in the midst of a significant upgrade program that will see 80 jets receive a substantial upgrade to their combat capability. Having said that, I believe the aircraft are still scheduled to last no longer than 2017 and I would expect that you will see a project stood up no later than 2007 to start the process of replacing them. As to what will replace the Hornets, that's anybody's guess but we could expect that the list of candidates will be reasonably short and would likely include the F-35 (in one of its variants) and almost certainly not the F-22 (too expensive).

Sam
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Bert on September 20, 2004, 21:05:05
The JSF have many good features but I'm sure it is expensive as heck.  Since Canada has utilized
fighters in a ground stike, air superiority, and interception roles, would it be in Canada's
best interest to maintain Hornet squadrons as well as whatever number of JSF squadrons
the country could support? 

The Hornet contracts were purchased with long term service, maintenance, and simplicity in mind. 
The aircraft has worked adequately as a multi-role fighter.  In time, Canada will have to replace
the CF-18s.  I surmise that the JSFs could not be purchased to directly replace the CF-18s unit
by unit.  Instead of using the CF-18 multi-role scenario in the future, would Canada begin
acquiring role specific fighters or choosing another more advanced but economical multi-role?

Any acquisition scenarios by 2017-2020?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: condor888000 on September 20, 2004, 21:23:53
Starts at 35 mill. Not bad for a fighter as capable as it is supposed to be.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: canuck101 on September 21, 2004, 00:07:09
I think when Canada gets around to replacing the CF-18, the JSF would be all ready in service in other countries. I don't think the gov is interested in having two fighters.  we may not be the first to buy but i think we will purchase them maybe not as many as we did with the CF-18.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Cloud Cover on September 22, 2004, 00:10:02
Starts at 35 mill. Not bad for a fighter as capable as it is supposed to be.

Seems a little low. Engine, wings and wiring must be optional.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: condor888000 on September 22, 2004, 17:08:25
Seems a little low. Engine, wings and wiring must be optional.

I was slightly off. Popular Mechanics, May 2002, "The air force will fly the F-35A. The least complicated, of the designs, they will cost more than $ 30 million each." Obviously a bit old, but should still be fairly close.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 23, 2004, 18:21:58
Reinforcing Sam69s comments about having an Air Force expeditionary capability already,  these comments came from Bill Graham:

Quote
The CF does currently have an expeditionary fighter capability with the CF-188

Quote
Upgraded CF-18 fighter jets have no where to fly
Air-to-air refuelling
 
Chris Wattie
National Post


September 23, 2004


 
The Canadian air force now has the ability to send its CF-18 fighters almost anywhere in the world, with their own precision bombs and their own air-to-air refuelling tanker, but Bill Graham, the Defence Minister, said yesterday he has no plans to use the air force's new-found mobility.

The air force will take delivery of its first converted CC-150 Polaris transport plane in two weeks, an air force spokesman said, giving the Canadian Forces the ability to send a self-sufficient squadron of fighters abroad for the first time in seven years.

"Within a period of weeks, you could have the entire force on the ground and flying combat missions at the other end," said Brigadier-General Dwight Davies, the chief of operations for 1st Canadian Air Division.

"There's no geographic impediment to us deploying these aircraft anywhere in the world ... we can get, in a very short period of time, to anywhere on the globe."

The Canadian Forces is spending $80-million to turn two of its five Polaris jets into air-to-air refuelling tankers, essentially flying gas stations for CF-18 fighters.

The newly fitted tankers can also carry passengers, allowing the air force for the first time in decades to send a Canadian expeditionary squadron abroad, complete with jets, pilots and ground crew.

Crews must still be trained in refuelling techniques and some airborne electronics must still be added to the Polaris tankers, but they are expected to be operational by early next year. A second tanker aircraft will be ready by next April.

But despite calls from NATO and embattled Afghan government, the Liberal Defence Minister said yesterday he will not send the fighters to fly air cover for Canadian and allied ground troops in Afghanistan.

"I can't tell you if we're sending them anywhere at the moment, certainly not Afghanistan for now. But we want to make sure they have the resources to maintain that capability."

Mr. Graham, speaking with the National Post after he addressed a gathering at the Royal Canadian Military Institute, said the air force will wait until they are asked to deploy the CF-18s before they commit them overseas.

"Let's make sure they get to the mission that's appropriate. Afghanistan is not that mission at the moment."

The Defence Minister said in his speech at the institute that one of his priorities will be giving the Canadian Forces much-needed rest after back-to-back overseas missions in Afghanistan and the Arabian Sea.

"The high operational tempo ... has had an impact on our men and women in uniform and their families. As I've said before, they need and deserve a break."

"This is why we are now moving to reduce our operational commitments and begin a period of regeneration."

The United States sent an "informal request for forces" to the Canadian military in 2002, asking if they could deploy a squadron of CF-18s to southwest Asia to provide close air support for U.S. and coalition ground forces hunting down Taliban and al-Qaeda holdouts in Afghanistan.

According to Defence Department memos obtained by the National Post, Canadian staff officers determined that the proposed mission was possible. But Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison, the deputy chief of defence staff, turned down the U.S. request because of concerns that it would appear to be indirectly supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Brig.-Gen. Davies said that the air force is now in a better position to provide a "six pack" of Canadian fighters for an overseas mission, thanks to the new refuelling tankers and a multi-billion-dollar modernization program for the CF-18.

"Expeditionary capability, which is the ability to deploy abroad, is a significant area of focus and importance to the air force," he said. "[And] we can deploy fairly significant levels of combat power even as we speak."

Two of Canada's four fighter squadrons have been converted to the upgraded versions of the fighter jets, equipped with modern electronics, radios and targeting computers to allow them to use up-to-date precision bombs and missiles.

"It has been a great success story," Brig.-Gen. Davies said of the modernization program.

"The resulting modernized aircraft, with the weapons suite that goes with it, is a virtually state-of-the-art fighter that is world-class. It's a remarkable piece of equipment."

As well, the air force has acquired stockpiles of precision-guided weapons in recent months as well as additional electronic "sensor pods" carried under the fighters' wings to control laser- or GPS-guided bombs.

Six of the new fighters, accompanied by one of the CC-150 tankers, can be airborne and on their way to an international hot spot within days, Brig.-Gen. Davies said. "One of the principal things that the CF-18 brings to the table is not only does it provide a significant amount of combat power, even relatively small numbers, but it is deployable rapidly," he said.

"It will provide a capability to the Canadian government that -- should they choose to use it -- would have utility in a vast number of scenarios anywhere in the world."

With the new air-to-air refuelling planes, Brig.-Gen. Davies, said the air force can now go where it wants without relying on American or rented tankers. As well, he said, Canada can now support its fighters on the ground, even building its own air base if necessary.

"We have the ability to put in place a fully instrumented airport, where we would have control towers, [navigational] aids, communications and air traffic controllers and so on," he said.

"It's not an endless capability and to sustain such an airfield [abroad] would be a challenge, but no more than we are challenged in many other areas of the Canadian Forces to support a deployed operation."



Unfortunately Bill can't seem to find anything for them to do just now.....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on September 23, 2004, 18:58:01
And this is despite all the new capabilities out there....

Quote
Raytheon Completes JSOW Operational Test and Evaluation Firings 
 
 
(Source: Raytheon Company; issued Sept. 22, 2004)
 
 
 TUCSON, Ariz. --- Raytheon Company's unitary/penetration variant of Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW-C) has completed operational test (OT) firings with nine of 10 shots successful against a wide range of targets. JSOW-C was developed by a team that includes the U.S. Navy, Raytheon, BAE Systems and Thales Missile Electronics. 
 
â Å“JSOW-C will be a significant addition to the warfighting capability of the Navy and Marine Corps,â ? said Capt. David Dunaway, the Navy's JSOW program manager. â Å“We look forward to the fleet introduction of JSOW unitary.â ? 
 
JSOW-C incorporates a Raytheon-developed uncooled, long-wave infrared seeker with automatic target acquisition algorithms, providing the Navy a launch-and-leave weapon with a long-range standoff precision strike capability. JSOW-C will be the first U.S. weapon to incorporate the two stage broach blast fragmentation/penetration warhead, developed by the United Kingdom's BAE Systems. Thales provides the fuze. JSOW-C has a unique capability for a glide weapon in its ability to attack a hardened target in a near-horizontal mode. 
 
Operational testing took place primarily at the Naval Air Systems Command's Pacific Land Range at China Lake, Calif. OT tests the entire weapon system under fleet Navy and Marine Corps operational conditions. Delivery began this month of the first production missiles ordered under a previous low-rate initial production contract in July 2003. 
 
JSOW-C was tested against a wide array of targets ranging from radar sites to caves and hardened bunkers including targets where concealment and other methods were used to attempt to deceive the missile. â Å“We are very pleased with the success of the JSOW OT firings,â ? said Ron Shields, Raytheon's JSOW program director. â Å“The performance of our weapon against the concealment and deception exceeded expectations.â ? 
 
JSOW is a joint Navy and Air Force program. It is a family of low-cost, highly survivable, air-to-ground weapons employing an integrated Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation system that guides the weapon to the target. More than 400 JSOW-As have been used in combat operations to date. 
 
The JSOW family uses a common and modular weapon body capable of carrying a variety of payloads and handling multiple munitions. Its long standoff range of up to 70 nautical miles allows delivery from well outside the lethal range of most enemy air defenses. The AGM-154A (also called JSOW-A) variant dispenses BLU-97 combined-effect bomblets for use against soft and area targets. It is produced for use on the F/A-18, F-16, F-15E, B-1, B-2 and B-52 aircraft. The AGM-154C (JSOW-C) is currently being produced for Navy F/A-18s and has been selected by Poland for use on its F-16s. The Navy/Raytheon team is developing a Block II configuration of the JSOW weapon system that provides significant cost reductions to all JSOW versions. The first Block II configuration weapons will be delivered in 2007. Additionally, other JSOW improvements are under way to add anti-ship capability, reduce unexploded ordnance concerns, hit moving targets, provide bomb hit indication, provide network capability and further reduce costs. 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on September 24, 2004, 22:59:20
I would REALLY like to see a new fighter aircraft for Canada in the not so far future. We would never get to have something as advanced as the F-22... That would be AMAZING but no, way to expensive. That sucker is so expensive even the American's themselves almost canned the project, until they realized the potential of that aircraft. Anyway, the F-35 would be great for Canada. Unfortunatly by the time we buy them, they'll be shortly on thier way to the graveyard. I mean, realistically, by 2020, most modern nations will be just releasing or very close to releasing thier next generation of military aircraft.

The US said the F-35 will be thier last work on "Manned" fighter aircraft, YEAH, we'll see... We also thought that men wouldn't be flying fighter jets back in the 1950's-1960's and thanks to our government and US influence we lost the Avro Arrow. YEAH! Wicked idea they had back then!

Anyway, I can't wait until we get a new jet, although I do love the hornet, she's had her time in the sky!!!!

PS> Howcome we aren't getting our aircraft modernized to say, the F/A-18E+F Superhornets? I know thier a wee-bit expensive! About 50 million, would that be it? I seen one at the CNE (Canadian Nation Exhibition) Airshow in Toronto this summer, damn plane really tore the sky apart! But so did our Canadian CF-18 Hornet, but why not even upgrade to that level?

 ???
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: DJL on September 24, 2004, 23:22:32
Quote
I would REALLY like to see a new fighter aircraft for Canada in the not so far future. We would never get to have something as advanced as the F-22... That would be AMAZING but no, way to expensive. That sucker is so expensive even the American's themselves almost canned the project, until they realized the potential of that aircraft. Anyway, the F-35 would be great for Canada. Unfortunatly by the time we buy them, they'll be shortly on thier way to the graveyard. I mean, realistically, by 2020, most modern nations will be just releasing or very close to releasing thier next generation of military aircraft.


If we were to get the JSF in the 2020 timeframe, the aircraft will only have been in service with the United States for 6-8 years (depending on version), added to the fact that likely the Americans and British would get their orders first, so 2020 wouldn't appear to be a unreasonable ISD.

Quote
PS> Howcome we aren't getting our aircraft modernized to say, the F/A-18E+F Superhornets? I know thier a wee-bit expensive! About 50 million, would that be it? I seen one at the CNE (Canadian Nation Exhibition) Airshow in Toronto this summer, damn plane really tore the sky apart! But so did our Canadian CF-18 Hornet, but why not even upgrade to that level?

The Hornet and Superhornet are almost completely different aircraft. (Superhornet is larger) IIRC, we are supposed to be upgrading our Hornets to the same level as the current USN and USMC hornets. (C/D models?)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on September 28, 2004, 18:40:15
Quote
If we were to get the JSF in the 2020 timeframe, the aircraft will only have been in service with the United States for 6-8 years (depending on version), added to the fact that likely the Americans and British would get their orders first, so 2020 wouldn't appear to be a unreasonable ISD.

Well that is good to hear... At least we'll be modern/top of the line still then.

Quote
The Hornet and Superhornet are almost completely different aircraft. (Superhornet is larger) IIRC, we are supposed to be upgrading our Hornets to the same level as the current USN and USMC hornets. (C/D models?)

Yes I do understand they are very different. The E/F (Superhornets) have longer wings+fuselage, 2-3 more hardpoints and much more powerfull engines... And obviously upgraded avionics+flight control systems etc etc etc...

BUT... If you look closely at pics of the E/F's.. You'll notice they have the same air intakes as the F-22... The sort of squared away versions!!! They could use MANY off the shelf so to speak components you would think to produce the new versions... Like Europe's new EF2000, it uses the cockpit/front fuselage of off the shelf F-16's and also thier (although modified) fly by wire systems!

I dunno, I suppose I'm just feeling green over the fact that Canada has had the same fighter aircraft since I've been alive... :P
 :crybaby:
Joe
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Code5 on September 29, 2004, 02:17:10
If its any consolation we didn't get the last CF-18 till 1988 so technically we've had more than one fighter type  since you came along.  And the last CF-5 was retired in'95 (assuming of course the DND website is right). 

:)

 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Bograt on September 29, 2004, 10:24:29
Does anyone know if the Hornet upgrades will enable AMRAAM capability? Do the Aussies have AMRAAMS on their upgraded 18s?

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Code5 on September 29, 2004, 16:03:47
according to CASR we're getting aim-120s for the CF-18s, and i seem to recall a short news blurb a while back about the US okaying the sale of AMRAAMS to Canada. http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-ng3-5.htm
I'll do some digging
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: air533 on March 17, 2005, 20:31:18
.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Inch on March 17, 2005, 20:50:56
Doesn't the JSF have only one engine?
I don't think the Canadian government will buy a single-engine interceptor.
I thought that was part of the reason Canada chose the F-18 over the F-16 25 years ago.

air533

Jet engines are a lot more reliable than they were 25 years ago. If the engine can meet certain reliability requirements, I don't see why we wouldn't pick it.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: air533 on March 18, 2005, 01:51:25
.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: ArmyAviator on March 18, 2005, 14:03:22
This in from the Washington Post.   Noticed the revised cost estimate in $US.   IMHO when the government and the CF start looking at a replacement for the CF-18 we will be looking at the newer marks of the Eurofighter, Rafale, etc from Europe.   You can talk all you want about how much better the JSF is, or will be, but getting the best you can within your budget will be the order of the day.

Quote
Washington Post
March 16, 2005
Pg. 6
GAO Questions Cost Of Joint Strike Fighter
By Renae Merle, Washington Post Staff Writer
Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is at a crossroads, the Government Accountability Office said yesterday, calling the original plan for the project "unexecutable."
The fighter was designed to be a low-cost replacement to the Air Force's F-16, with different versions being developed for the Navy, Marine Corps and British forces. But it is now expected to cost $244.8 billion to produce a planned 2,400 planes. Development will cost $44.8 billion, including a $10 billion increase identified last year, the report said.
Nearly half the increase, $4.9 billion, is needed to lower the aircraft's weight because being heavier hurt "the aircraft's key performance capabilities," the report said. The Pentagon said more money was also needed to add anti-tampering technology to keep sensitive technology safe.
Spending on the program will eventually increase to $1 billion a month from $100 million a month as the Defense Department invests in tools, facilities and workers, according to the report. The final design of the fighter should be set before the Pentagon makes those investments so that costly changes will not have to be made later, a GAO official said.
"While delays are never welcomed, time taken by DOD now to gain more knowledge and reduce risk before increasing its investment may well save time and money later," the report said. "Now is the time to get the strategy right." It also said the strike fighter will have to compete with other expensive programs for "scarce funding."
The Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter office said it has already addressed the concerns raised in the report, the first of five annual reviews of the program ordered by Congress. The latest plan for the program, which includes delaying the first aircraft delivery one year until 2009, "reflects an acquisition strategy with the most appropriate balance of technical, cost, and schedule risks to meet program objectives," the office said in a written statement.
"Much progress has been made since last year. The F-35 has resolved its weight problem," said Lockheed spokesman Jeff Adams.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 18, 2005, 14:22:14
LOL ...can you imagine spending $1 billion each and every month to acquire a single aircraft type?  That, my friends, is not "sitting on the runway" "small town cheap."
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: air533 on March 18, 2005, 14:28:47
.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: jmacleod on March 18, 2005, 14:32:46
The contribution by Canada in the Lockheed-Martin F35 JSF is over $300m. There are no industrial
regional benefits associated with the aircraft but IC reports $400m in direct participation contracts
to Canadian firms. American Aerospace Assn reports this week that the estimated $10 billion overrun
on the F35 project are unacceptable to the US Government, and the aircraft is not working out as
well as anticipated -same problem with the F22. The Eurofighter is an alternative, and a good one.
The CF-18 with upgrades is scheduled to be in operational use for another decade or more, but a
lot will depend on the life expectancy of the airframe. AF Techs who read this will know what I
mean, since CF do not want to speculate. The choice of the F-18A Hornet had nothing to do with
multi engines - the first choice by DND CF (Gen Paul Manson &   Company) was the GD F-16 - regional
benefits and technology transfer (equalizing job creation) made the difference, plus the politics of
the period. Regards, MacLeod
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on March 18, 2005, 14:50:29
The Eurofighter might also be cheaper because it uses some "off-the-shelf" components like the F-16's front fuselage/cockpit section fitted with forward wing canards and same fly-by-wire systems. So maybe it having 2 engines making it more expensive will equal out because the off the shelf aspect?

I thought the F-22 was a fantastic aircraft no??? I thought the only reason they had not purchased so many/cut the amount they purchased is because individual unit cost and also the overrun of the budget in general?

Here's the link to Boeing's website for features on the F-22A:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/f22features.html

Joe
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: air533 on March 18, 2005, 15:26:33
.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on March 18, 2005, 15:38:57
Quote
I thought the primary reason for two-engine interceptors was for reliability and safety over the high arctic.
I think the JSF would be a better chioce for missions over the north, so would the F-22, but at 100m (US) per, I don't think we're going to get any of those babies.

air533

Two engines is also great for survivability/taking a hit. That is why the F-14 was originally designed with engines placed so far apart, so that if it took a missle it could hopefull still operate on 1 engine and make it back to the carrier.

I would agree 2 engines would be best, but we certainly don't get what we want! Look at what happened between the two helicopters, what did we end up with? The one with 2 engines, not 3...

Joe
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MrWhyt on March 18, 2005, 17:45:03
Quote
The Eurofighter might also be cheaper because it uses some "off-the-shelf" components like the F-16's front fuselage/cockpit section fitted with forward wing canards

The Eurofighter does not use the F-16's front fuselage, it is a clean sheet design. At the offical site: www.erofighter.com (http://www.eurofighter.com) you can read about the development history. Using the search function on the site "f-16" showed up only twice, both times as aircraft that the Eurofighter is in competition to replace.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on March 20, 2005, 18:03:51
Another advantage of the STOVL JSF - Forward Air Control and Ground Support

Harriers in Iraq have been used like jet propelled Helicopters, hovering over cities and directing artillery strikes.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050319-harrier-iraq.htm

Finally answering the question about Fast Movers like the F16 FAC the USAF, prefers or slow movers like the A-10 and the Helicopters the Army prefers.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Inch on March 20, 2005, 19:06:24
I would agree 2 engines would be best, but we certainly don't get what we want! Look at what happened between the two helicopters, what did we end up with? The one with 2 engines, not 3...

I can't speak for every helo pilot, but given the complexity of a helicopter, adding an even more complex gearbox to the mix is not what I wanted and I know a lot of other helo pilots feel the same way.  There is a reason that the EH101 is one of a handful of 3 engined helos, the CH53E being the other one that comes to mind. Sikorsky has stated that they only put the third engine in the CH53E so that it had enough power, other wise they wouldn't have done it since the gear box for 3 engines is an engineering nightmare and IMO, an accident waiting to happen.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on March 20, 2005, 23:11:24
Quote
The Eurofighter might also be cheaper because it uses some "off-the-shelf" components like the F-16's front fuselage/cockpit section fitted with forward wing canards

The Eurofighter does not use the F-16's front fuselage, it is a clean sheet design. At the offical site: www.erofighter.com you can read about the development history. Using the search function on the site "f-16" showed up only twice, both times as aircraft that the Eurofighter is in competition to replace.

My bad for not providing confirmation of where I attained my info, the Discovery Channel. Can't claim to how accurate that info was/is but that's what the narrator said!

Quote
I can't speak for every helo pilot, but given the complexity of a helicopter, adding an even more complex gearbox to the mix is not what I wanted and I know a lot of other helo pilots feel the same way.  There is a reason that the EH101 is one of a handful of 3 engined helos, the CH53E being the other one that comes to mind. Sikorsky has stated that they only put the third engine in the CH53E so that it had enough power, other wise they wouldn't have done it since the gear box for 3 engines is an engineering nightmare and IMO, an accident waiting to happen.

Naturally, I hadn't considered those factors since I have no experience in those areas (mechanics or piloting of any aircraft!). I suppose the third engine would only be good/wanted if we were to be using the EH101 as a heavy lift helo. Which, I don't think we are trying to do right???
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Kilo_302 on January 30, 2006, 15:06:31
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html (http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html)

Here's a link to a series of articles debating the JSF and RAAF's replacement for its F/A-18s. The authors make some good points which could apply to Canada's situation. While Canada does not have the same level of strategic interest Asia as Australia does, we do have a large geographical area to cover, and as China and India emerge as superpowers, the Canadian Forces will have to shift its focus from Europe and the Middle East. I was also not previously aware of the multi-role nature of the Raptor (hence the "A" designation), nor actual cost of the JSF versus the Raptor(one of the articles quotes a figure of 70 Raptors for the price of 100 JSFs). Canada, if the US allows the F/A-22A to be exported, should definitely consider it as a replacement for the CF-18, rather than the inferior JSF. What do you guys think?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Armymatters on January 30, 2006, 16:25:04
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html (http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html)

Here's a link to a series of articles debating the JSF and RAAF's replacement for its F/A-18s. The authors make some good points which could apply to Canada's situation. While Canada does not have the same level of strategic interest Asia as Australia does, we do have a large geographical area to cover, and as China and India emerge as superpowers, the Canadian Forces will have to shift its focus from Europe and the Middle East. I was also not previously aware of the multi-role nature of the Raptor (hence the "A" designation), nor actual cost of the JSF versus the Raptor(one of the articles quotes a figure of 70 Raptors for the price of 100 JSFs). Canada, if the US allows the F/A-22A to be exported, should definitely consider it as a replacement for the CF-18, rather than the inferior JSF. What do you guys think?

The F-22 Raptors are EXPENSIVE jets. How much? Here's a link:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm
And the US Air Force just dropped the A designation of the F-22, so it is now F-22A... in reality, the F-22 is a crap multi-role fighter, as it can only fit pair 1000lb JDAM's, and you sacrifice all but 2 AAMRAM's and a pair of Sidewinders.

A more suitable fighter would be the US Navy's F/A-18E Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Dassault Rafale. All are more multi-role fighters than a pure air superiority fighter, which is what the CF uses our CF-18's as more often.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Gues t on January 30, 2006, 18:33:27
There is so much wrong with that whole webpage.. I don't even know where to begin.  ::)

Too much information compiled by those with "book smarts".. as oppsed to "real world experience smarts"

Another fine example of reading Jane's, compiling un-related reports out of context, with a nice smattering of "Educated Guessing"

Explain to me, Armymatters.

How the F/A-18E Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Dassault Rafale will make a better choice than the JSF in 2010.

These are all fine aircraft, but they are using "Todays Tech" while the JSF is a true 5th gen aircraft.

By the time we get ready to buy aircraft in 2010-2012, I want my Tax money going to the most current, not tech 16 years old.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Armymatters on January 30, 2006, 19:09:36
There is so much wrong with that whole webpage.. I don't even know where to begin.  ::)

Too much information compiled by those with "book smarts".. as oppsed to "real world experience smarts"

Another fine example of reading Jane's, compiling un-related reports out of context, with a nice smattering of "Educated Guessing"

Explain to me, Armymatters.

How the F/A-18E Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Dassault Rafale will make a better choice than the JSF in 2010.

These are all fine aircraft, but they are using "Todays Tech" while the JSF is a true 5th gen aircraft.

By the time we get ready to buy aircraft in 2010-2012, I want my Tax money going to the most current, not tech 16 years old.
Problems with JSF:
1. Range. The aircraft will have insufficient range compared to the types it is replacing. This will require either external fuel tanks (destroying the stealth capabilities of the aircraft) or increase air-to-air refueling. The aircraft also lacks the ability to supercruise, compared to the other types I have mentioned
2. Price. Costs per unit are starting to rise, meaning cost effectiveness per unit has decreased compared to other types.
3. Weight issues. The F-35 is already 8% overweight (in the F-35B variant), and weight cutting programs are cutting into capability of the aircraft. Also, the internal weapons are stored offline to the external air flow, which will make for some interesting weapons certification work. The JSF has yet to drop a bomb, fire a missile, or fire a gun airborne - no demonstrations of weapons delivery capability were done during the 'winner take all' fly off prior to contract award.
4. Weapons loadout. Due to the fact that the F-35 carries its weapons internally, there are restrictions as to what can be carried by the airplane. The F-35 carries less than the F-16 it is due to replace, which makes for a very demanding one shot one kill requirement.

JSF may be the most current aircraft available, but it surely isn't going to be the most capable for the tasks it is being given.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Astrodog on January 30, 2006, 22:54:48
The aircraft also lacks the ability to supercruise, compared to the other types I have mentioned

  don't think the superbug can supercruise
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Armymatters on January 30, 2006, 23:14:39
  don't think the superbug can supercruise

Of course. However, the other two have that capability. The gist of the point I was making that the JSF is not as capable as the airplanes it is replacing, and there are aircraft that may be superior already on the market is clear enough.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: STONEY on January 31, 2006, 01:31:40
1. None of the aircraft you mentioned can supercruise. The F-22 is the only a/c with this capeability.
2. The JSF has in fact more range on internal fuel than the a/c it is replacing.
3. The JSF is still cheaper than Eurofighter or Rafale.
4. All Fighters have problems with becoming overweight that's why they keep putting uprated engines in them.
5. Of course it carrys less bombload internally , it was designed that way. If you hang bombs all over the wings it slows you down, shortens your range and makes you more visible to people trying to kill you. If you want more bombs buy a B-52.
6. All a/c that haven't flown yet, also havent dropped any bombs, fired a missle or a gun. Whats your point , that Lockheed isn't smart enough to think of these things when designing JSF, give me a break. The reason they do a flight test program is so they can fix bugs and modify the a/c before Production.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Armymatters on January 31, 2006, 02:35:40
1. None of the aircraft you mentioned can supercruise. The F-22 is the only a/c with this capeability.
2. The JSF has in fact more range on internal fuel than the a/c it is replacing.
3. The JSF is still cheaper than Eurofighter or Rafale.
4. All Fighters have problems with becoming overweight that's why they keep putting uprated engines in them.
5. Of course it carrys less bombload internally , it was designed that way. If you hang bombs all over the wings it slows you down, shortens your range and makes you more visible to people trying to kill you. If you want more bombs buy a B-52.
6. All a/c that haven't flown yet, also havent dropped any bombs, fired a missle or a gun. Whats your point , that Lockheed isn't smart enough to think of these things when designing JSF, give me a break. The reason they do a flight test program is so they can fix bugs and modify the a/c before Production.
1. Eurofighter Typhoon can supercruise:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ef2000/
Quote
The four-nation Eurofighter Typhoon is a foreplane delta-wing, beyond-visual-range, close air fighter aircraft with surface attack capability. Eurofighter has 'supercruise' capability: it can fly at sustained speeds of over Mach 1 without the use of afterburner.
Dassault Rafale also has supercruise, albiet with a engine upgrade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale
2. F-35 has a estimated range of over 600 nautical miles, or 1111.2km, in a air combat loadout:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jsf-specs.htm
Rafale has a range of 1150 miles, or 1850km in a air combat loadout:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafale
Eurofighter Typhoon has the following range listed:
ground attack, lo-lo-lo : 601 km
ground attack, hi-lo-hi : 1389 km
air defence with 3hr CAP : 185 km
air defence with 10-min loiter : 1389 km
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter-specs.htm
With the other fighters, I am getting strange ranges comparisons that make comparing them side to side difficult, so I will leave it at that.
3. Eurofighter's fly away cost is around €62.9 million Euros each or 76 million dollars US. That includes training for pilots and ground crew, logistics, maintenance, and a simulator
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0309/FR0309d.htm
Rafale's fly away cost is around €53 million Euros each or 64 million dollars US.
F-35A's fly away cost is around 45 million dollars US (as reported Asia Pacific Defence Reporter, September 2005). However, costs are rising significantly, as reported by the DoD in 2003, and the program has fallen behind schedule. Cuts to the estimated number of jets bought are also driving up per unit costs, and there is a very strong threat of cancellation of the A variant, while leaves the B STOL variant ($60 million dollars US) and the C variant ($55 million dollars US).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/jsf-specs.htm
The Brits are also starting to voice significant displeasure over the capabilities of the jet and technology transfer, which may lead them to pull out as well.
Right now, claiming JSF is cheaper right now is a bit premature. Wait until the full costs have been tabulated, and the airplane is actually in production in 2010, and then see what happens, because right now, there is a threat that the A variant might be cancelled, and the Brits may seriously pull out, leaving everyone else in the program to foot the bill.
4. I will have to agree with you there, so no further comments.
5. That is why it is called tactical bombing. You don't use a B-52 for tactical bombing.
6. Compared to the other fighter programs, the fact that there has been no weapons tests during selection of who won is highly notable.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Slim on January 31, 2006, 03:38:24
Armymatters

other than a book what are basing your conclusions on?

You are speaking with people who have first hand knowledge of the subject being discussed.

You do not and, to my knowledge, have never served a day.

back in your lane!

Staff
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: big bad john (John Hill) on January 31, 2006, 03:58:38
Armymatters

other than a book what are basing your conclusions on?

You are speaking with people who have first hand knowledge of the subject being discussed.

You do not and, to my knowledge, have never served a day.

back in your lane!

Staff

In more than one thread!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on January 31, 2006, 04:57:22
Armymatters, it might help your credibility if you would stop regurgitating articles from magazines...some of them are either misleading or incorrect.

Case in point...both Typhoon and Rafale can supercruise, but guess what they don't tell you in the article...only possible clean since both are 4th gen a/c that have most stores external.  Source: I spoke with the German Typhoon chief test pilot at the EADS factory in 2001 and asked him about supercruise...I doubt an engine upgrade could overcome external stores drag to allow loaded-supercruise.  I think you'll agree with me that supercruising without any armament is somewhat self-defeating.

Second case in point...B-52's ARE used for tactical bombing.  I only recently spoke with a USAF ETAC (enlisted terminal attack controller) who noted that B-52s were fantastic for staying on station for extended periods in both OIF and OEF theatres to distribute LGBs one at a time, if required.  I think most here in the know will agree that a single LGB being directed by an ETAC or FAC from a B52 for a specific small target is tactical, notwithstanding how the B-52 first started life in SAC.

Perhaps either some research/interviewing to at least pick up some second-hand information or more in-depth analysis of open-source material might assist you in gaining some credibility here.

Back on thread, I think the JSF would make a good future aircraft for the CF...I would personally go for a mix of B's and C's, but I think we'd get all A's...can't fault the air force for that so long as we have decent MOBs & FOBs to operate from.

Duey
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on January 31, 2006, 09:16:37
Back on thread, I think the JSF would make a good future aircraft for the CF...I would personally go for a mix of B's and C's, but I think we'd get all A's...can't fault the air force for that so long as we have decent MOBs & FOBs to operate from.

Agreed.  I doubt that the airforce will ever again operate a mixed-bag of anything.  I'm not a big fan of JSF myself but it is certainly our best bet for replacing the 18s.  As mentioned earlier, rafale & Typhoon  are "now" aircraft and do not fit the Canadian time frame.  Don't get me wrong , i would love to see  a section of rafales here in the QRA facility but....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Armymatters on February 01, 2006, 16:20:04
Well, with the current upgrades to the CF-18, now planned to go to 2017 (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q1/060118b_nr.html), and they will probally serve until 2020. But I am thinking we should not put our all of our eggs into one basket (JSF), as the Brits are right now threatening to pull out of the project, and potential NATO customers in Europe have either raised flags regarding the program and are turning to other aircraft types to renew their fleets. Basically, this year is key for European fighter decisions. It can either make or break the JSF program all together.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1370943&C=America
I can see Spain and Italy going JSF, as they need to replace their Harriers on their carriers, and F-35B is the only way to do so. With everyone else, not too sure. Best to wait and watch and see whenever or not these nations go through with JSF.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: blueboy on February 02, 2006, 04:00:14
I'm very surprised that with all of the quoting that Armymatters writes that he hasn't listed any Russian aircraft to replace the F-18's. I'm sure he can dig up some wonderful quotes regarding the SU-27 airframe. It looks like the Chinese and Indian Airforces love them. It surely has the range and capabilities? If one is to peruse Armymatters background he certainly lives up to his function of wishing to be merely a bureaucrate. Those that can,...do, Those that can't (nor never have) only criticize  those of us who have done it.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Slim on February 02, 2006, 06:11:49
Well, with the current upgrades to the CF-18, now planned to go to 2017 (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q1/060118b_nr.html), and they will probally serve until 2020. But I am thinking we should not put our all of our eggs into one basket (JSF), as the Brits are right now threatening to pull out of the project, and potential NATO customers in Europe have either raised flags regarding the program and are turning to other aircraft types to renew their fleets. Basically, this year is key for European fighter decisions. It can either make or break the JSF program all together.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1370943&C=America
I can see Spain and Italy going JSF, as they need to replace their Harriers on their carriers, and F-35B is the only way to do so. With everyone else, not too sure. Best to wait and watch and see whenever or not these nations go through with JSF.


Stop posting out of your league.

Next time you're getting a warning.

Staff
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Ditch on February 02, 2006, 11:39:33
Ok - this is getting tiresome on all accounts.

Everyone that is a current CF-18 fighter pilot (or anyone else that flies fighters for an allied force) please chirp up now.

I imagine that no one will respond who hasn't already.  Therefore there are zero SME's on these means about this current subject.  I therefore surmise that all of us are out of our lane and should therefore take staff direction and STFU.  Armymatters may be talking above his operational experience level, but at least he is making attempts to research what he is saying and attempting to draw out a conversation from forum members.  I highly suggest that the rest of you take a break from attempting to slag the lad and just sit back and continue posting in other threads.  If you notice, most AF pers are giving this subject a wide berth, mostly because our corporate knowledge may not be quite up to speed on the JSF/F-22 topic.  I personally couldn't care less about the fighters in the CF aresenal.

This board and it esteemed members like to jump all over the new members and slag all their posts.  We are all posers in every right on these means.  Most senior members are an excellent source of information - however a post count does not equal military experience.  So here is a shot in the arm of all the discouraged posters - buck up and continue posting...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on February 02, 2006, 12:34:28
Canada has several unique factors which stick us between a rock and a hard place:

Canada is so vast that even doing northern patrols is difficult for a conventional fighter. Getting overseas to deploy also needs a plane with a long ferry range. Long range usually equates to larger (think F-15 sized)

When we ARE deployed in the far north or overseas on a PSO, it would be wise to assume we will be operating from an austere airfield. This tends to favor small, light and relatively unsophisticated aircraft (or at least easy to maintain like the SAAB Gripon).

We really need two tactical aircraft, a long range fighter/interceptor to cover the north and the oceans off our coasts, and a nimble fighter/bomber to support deployed task forces.

Being a small force, there isn't a budget available to design and build multiple aircraft for our unique requirements. Perhaps we could go really out of the box and ask Scaled Composites (builders of "SpaceshipOne" and the Voyager around the world aircraft, among other designs) to make a proposal, but even then we would have a small fleet of aircraft which are logistically incompatible with our allies.

The best bet is to do what we do already, find something which is close, accept compromises and kit bash to make a closer fit to our needs.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Kilo_302 on February 02, 2006, 13:06:39
I don't see why we cant debate something on this site unless people who have first hand knowledge participate. Talking about army issues is one thing, there are enough vets or currently serving members here who can contribute. But next gen fighter aircraft? There are very few pilots in the world, if any, who have flown all the aircraft we have been talking about, so until someone who has flown the F-22, Eurofighter, Super hornet etc shows up, I say let the debate go on. Technical data does not lie, and an aircraft will be selected on technical data as well as first hand evaluation. If someone has an opinion which as no merit at all and with no background, then I agree, stay in your lane.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Astrodog on February 02, 2006, 13:21:33
Ok - this is getting tiresome on all accounts.

Everyone that is a current CF-18 fighter pilot (or anyone else that flies fighters for an allied force) please chirp up now.

I imagine that no one will respond who hasn't already.  Therefore there are zero SME's on these means about this current subject.  I therefore surmise that all of us are out of our lane and should therefore take staff direction and STFU.  Armymatters may be talking above his operational experience level, but at least he is making attempts to research what he is saying and attempting to draw out a conversation from forum members.  I highly suggest that the rest of you take a break from attempting to slag the lad and just sit back and continue posting in other threads.  If you notice, most AF pers are giving this subject a wide berth, mostly because our corporate knowledge may not be quite up to speed on the JSF/F-22 topic.  I personally couldn't care less about the fighters in the CF aresenal.

This board and it esteemed members like to jump all over the new members and slag all their posts.  We are all posers in every right on these means.  Most senior members are an excellent source of information - however a post count does not equal military experience.  So here is a shot in the arm of all the discouraged posters - buck up and continue posting...

  thank you zoomie!!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: blueboy on February 02, 2006, 13:46:10
I think Zoomie is onto something.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on February 02, 2006, 14:03:02
Ok - this is getting tiresome on all accounts.

Everyone that is a current CF-18 fighter pilot (or anyone else that flies fighters for an allied force) please chirp up now.

I imagine that no one will respond who hasn't already.  Therefore there are zero SME's on these means about this current subject.  I therefore surmise that all of us are out of our lane and should therefore take staff direction and STFU.  Armymatters may be talking above his operational experience level, but at least he is making attempts to research what he is saying and attempting to draw out a conversation from forum members.  I highly suggest that the rest of you take a break from attempting to slag the lad and just sit back and continue posting in other threads.  If you notice, most AF pers are giving this subject a wide berth, mostly because our corporate knowledge may not be quite up to speed on the JSF/F-22 topic.  I personally couldn't care less about the fighters in the CF aresenal.

This board and it esteemed members like to jump all over the new members and slag all their posts.  We are all posers in every right on these means.  Most senior members are an excellent source of information - however a post count does not equal military experience.  So here is a shot in the arm of all the discouraged posters - buck up and continue posting...

All lemmings, STAND TO!  Prepare to repel non-fighter pilot boarders...  ::)

I do not agree with you Zoomie...so will you only talk about Armour Corps issues and SAR, fixed-wing primarily, perhaps with some rotary-wing thrown in only if you have direct experience?  Others only on topics they have first-hand experience with?

While I personally think that Armymatters is overdoing the research-only fed input to the issue, to imply that only folks qualified on the aircraft "closest" to that being discussed need continue the thread is not at all reasonable. 

It's not like the thread was "Who thinks the expanded TWS mode of the APG-73 is any better than that on the APG-65 on ECP 583 Hornets?"

Perhaps the mods should carve all the posters out of this thread who aren't current CF188-qual'd pilots?

Then again, perhaps the thread can continue in general with a little less emphasis on regurgitating numbers and placement of reasoned logic and consideration to an issue where direct in-cockpit experience may not exist.  Especially moving towards a greater emphasis on EBO, details of flying a particular platform are not as important as the argument for the range of effects that a particular weapon system contributes to operations.

Cheers,
Duey


Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Kilo_302 on February 02, 2006, 16:12:36
Quote
Especially moving towards a greater emphasis on EBO, details of flying a particular platform are not as important as the argument for the range of effects that a particular weapon system contributes to operations.

I totally agree. With the emphasis on BVR combat for an air superiority fighter, it becomes clear which platforms offer the best solution without having to know what it feels like to fly them.

Also, having direct hands on experience doesnt always mean you know what the best solution is. For example, the Sten gun in WW II was widely regarded as being a cheap, poorly made weapon by soldiers who were equipped with it. But from a wider perspective, that fact that it was cheaply made was good, in that it could be produced in larger numbers than the Thompson. A crude example, but it still applies.

While I am not in favour of this approach in this case, (I still think we should look into the more expensive F-22 if its multirole capabilities are further developed), it holds some water. Spending less money on the JSF could enable the CF to spend more in others (cost/benefit).  I think we ought to remember that there are multiple ways of looking at this issue, whether it be from a pilot's perspective, a strategic perspective, or economic/political perspective.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Ditch on February 02, 2006, 16:24:42
I am afraid that the intent of my original message has been misconstrued.  I do not avocate shutting this thread down due to a lack of SME's.  I am trying to make an issue with those who would tell other posters to stop posting due to a lack of first-hand knowledge. (whew, long sentence) 

I am all for this thread to continue.  It brings out those that enjoy such venues such as Janes.com and other technical-rich sources.

I take exception to some members attempting to shut down others.  My point that none of us are CF-188 drivers is more of an example of how all of us have equal voice in this topic.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Armymatters on February 03, 2006, 00:36:55
1. I do not recommend Russian jets for one good reason: maintenance. I know a mechanic in the Luftwaffe that serviced the MiG-29's. He said that the MiG-29 was hell to service, primarily due to its crudeness. Also, Russian engines aren't too reliable, and they are more finicky with fuel - see the Indian experience with Russian jets. For example, you have to overhaul a RD-33 engine in a MiG-29 every 500 hours, he told me. Remember, there are two of these engines in a MiG-29. The GE F110 engine in a F-16 can go 1000-1500 hours between overhauls, roughly 2-3 times the life of a Russian engine. So, I have to agree, from a technical perspective to stick with Western designs, and a easy to maintain airplane, to save money on maintenance. Sure, Russian fighters are cheap, and they perform great, but think of the overall costs as well.

2. The CF-18 is a hard jet to replace, I have to admit. The design is excellent for what we use it for, and it is a easy jet to maintain, compared to other airplanes. I will have to agree with a_majoor that we are stuck in terms of finding a suitable replacement. Our geography and the missions we send our CF-18's out on dictate a design that in essence, contradicts itself in terms of features. You normally can't have a long range jet in a small airframe (unless you turn the airplane into a flying fuel tank), and larger airplanes are usually harder to maintain. Canada's budget for new fighters does not allow for buying specifically taylored airplanes, we have to get multi-role airplanes that does it all.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: CTD on February 03, 2006, 02:18:07
I vow we buy new F18's. Why? It is an awesome weapons platform. We can aquire a new jet that is proven to be very well built and we can have a min of hassle for the conversion training for pilots and ground crew.
The jet is good enough for the US Navy for the next XXXX number of years so I figure it is good enough for us. 

It would be nice to play with all the rader defeating supercruise jets. The reality of it is we cannot afford nor do we need such high tech low yield fighter attack bombers. The CF 18 does an outstanding job now in it's present configeration. So why buy a whole new weapons platform only to have to re do the whole drawing board with learning and other systems? 
We need a jet now that we can deploy over seas and support the troops on the ground with a min of hassle in the form of training, parts and learning curves for all.  Looking ahead to determine the need for our military fighter attack jet in the next 20 to 40 years is silly. We need good jets now. To spend the big bucks and get the big toys mean nothing unless you can use those toys for what they are meant to be used for, that is support.

In the distant future we should aquire one of those nifty high tech rader defeating supercruise high altitude air to air, air to ground and air to sea attack fighter/ bombers that can fly 90 deg's to it's flight path with in a second and dodge all but the best missiles.

Bottom line is the US is only ordering a limited number of FA22 Raptors. This may change but as of yet it hasn't. Their are to many other variables into the fighter replacement project that they need to figure out before going to a all one fighter outfit. The JSF is a dream for it's super ablities, to deploy as a stol platform to fit the Marine and Navy's need's. Hence why the purchase of the new G model of the FA18 Super Hornet. The Super Hornet will be with the US Navy/ Marine Corps for long time to come. I feel it should become a part of our Weapons platform in the very near future.

Strictly my opinion and mine alone.
cheers all 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: FSTO on February 04, 2006, 22:24:14
Bottom line is the US is only ordering a limited number of FA22 Raptors. This may change but as of yet it hasn't. Their are to many other variables into the fighter replacement project that they need to figure out before going to a all one fighter outfit. The JSF is a dream for it's super ablities, to deploy as a stol platform to fit the Marine and Navy's need's. Hence why the purchase of the new G model of the FA18 Super Hornet. The Super Hornet will be with the US Navy/ Marine Corps for long time to come. I feel it should become a part of our Weapons platform in the very near future.

Strictly my opinion and mine alone.
cheers all 

Navy puke here.

From my limited knowledge of the AF, the F/A 18 ( a NAVY aircraft BTW  >:D) has been an outstanding aircraft for Canada.
That being said, the replacement for it should be the navy/marine version of the JSF. I say that for the following reasons:
Who knows what we are going to get for an Amphib ship? The Marine version may be able to work off of it.
More fwd deploying bases: Scenario: CF is deployed to Butthole Somewhere outside of NA. There is a need for fast air, but there is no real airport to support a traditional fighter. Naval Task force moves in, sends troops ashore, set up very austere airfield. Helo's bring in fuel and voila we have a support base for fast air. Outlandish? Impossible? With a F22 Raptor yes, with the JSF maybe no.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on February 05, 2006, 00:14:31
* Deuy, having "grown up" at Roads, hums the words to 'Heart of Oak'...*

FTSO, I agree.

Cheers,
Duey
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on February 05, 2006, 00:39:30
I personally think that the Super Hornet is THE BEST Hornet Replacement.
It may have the same name and look the the same, but in fact it is a totally different aircraft...
-Payload augmentation of 15%
-2 more underwing hardpoints
-Range augmentation of 40%
-Parts reduction of 40%
-Size augmentation of 25%
-Radar signature reduction of 60% (yes that's true)
The Super Hornet now comes with the Raytheon APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. Future upgrades could be an IRST and even trust-vectoring nozzles (yes that's possible). Talk about a modern aircraft!

As for the JSF, It can only carry 4 missiles or bombs internally so it WILL have to carry at least half of its weapons externally..... bye bye super stealth.  ;)
Another thing about the JSF is that its cockpit offers bad visibility for the pilot compared to almost all other current and future fighters. Some might argue that this is not important in the 21st century, but in fact it is rather the contrary if we want to take full advantage of these new short-range air to air targetting-NVGs.
(  http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-ng3-7.htm ).  :)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: CTD on February 05, 2006, 04:01:32
I figure the Super Hornet right now is the best option for our needs. I am willing to say that US Navy/Marine Corps wont be using the JSF anytime soon (the next 10 or so years) in a large amount of quantities for us to justify the dream of having them in our arsenal. We need a well proving Platform that can be sustained with a min of hassle. The Super Hornet can do this for us for the next 10 to 20 years.
Speculation of an Amphip ship and what it can can't do will be up in the air until we actually see it. At the time it is actually spec'd, that is when we could focus buying Air Weapons Platforms for that particular application. Until then we can look at what we need and can use. To buy an A/C that we may use to it's full potential 20 years from now is pointless.
The F/A18 G Super Hornet is spec'd to provide a variety of mission specialties. A/A refuelling, conventional A/A and A/G attack, ECM for the fleet, EW and numerous other capabilities. The Navy/Marine Corp purchased a jet that is truly a multifighter/attack fighter in the Super Hornet. It can do all the missions well that are being done by the rest of the fleet and with a min of hassle for re config of the basic airframe. To me for the limited number of Airframes that we will buy this is the best allround jet. The JSF and the F/A22 although good Aircraft cannot provide the vast range of capabilities that the Super Hornet can muster. 
 
No hard feeling's meant by my post.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on February 05, 2006, 09:32:21
Just thought that I would throw something else on the table wrt buying an amphibious ship and then buying the F-35B to possibly operate off of it.  Right now, I'm reading a book about Banshee fighters in the Canadian Navy from 1957-1962.  It is pretty clear from the book that HMCS BONAVENTURE and the Banshee fighter were bought by two different "groups" within the Navy, without necessarily making sure they were compatible together.  Guess what? They weren't.  BONAVENTURE turned out to be too slow and too small for a fighter the size of the Banshee, so the Banshee was retired early in 1962, despite having the best record of exercise intercepts of any Canadian Fighter of the day (mostly because of the sidewinder missile, but I digress).

My point?  IF it is decided that it is important to the CF to operate fighters from a ship again in the future (a mighty big IF, in my opinion).  You had better make sure that before you buy either the ship or the fighter, that you are absolutely convinced that they will work together. 

In my mind, any fighter aircraft that you buy to operate off of any ship of the size we are likely to buy (let's say 20,000-30,000 tonnes, tops) is going to be a compromise and will not do other things like long range air interception in North America really well when it is not embarked.  In other words, we are not going to buy 80-100 VTOL F-35Bs, just because we MIGHT end up operating 4-8 of them off of a amphib someday.  if you want a full performance aircraft without too many compromises, you are going to need a full performance aircraft carrier.

To my way of thinking, buying some form of armed/attack helicopter gives you most of the fire support functions you are likely to need in an expeditionary force, without worrying too much about ship/aircraft incompatibility.  Most of your air defence functions could be better performed by ensuring that your escort ships have a robust missile/radar combination (like a Standard missile with an APAR) that could give you pretty good coverage over land anyway.

Just my opinion...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on February 05, 2006, 12:27:30
...To my way of thinking, buying some form of armed/attack helicopter gives you most of the fire support functions you are likely to need in an expeditionary force, without worrying too much about ship/aircraft incompatibility.  Most of your air defence functions could be better performed by ensuring that your escort ships have a robust missile/radar combination (like a Standard missile with an APAR) that could give you pretty good coverage over land anyway.

Just my opinion...


I would like to formally announce that in no way did I influence, nor attempt to influence SeaKingTacco to make the preceding statement!


....although the AH-1Z is a fully-marinized, combat-capable, attack helicopter....just for fear anyone was wondering.  *whistles innocently*

Seriously though, SKT, very good point!  I think there needs to be a little more holistic assessment going into capabilities that clearly span multiple environments/services.

Cheers,
Duey
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on February 05, 2006, 12:43:41
Quote
Seriously though, SKT, very good point!  I think there needs to be a little more holistic assessment going into capabilities that clearly span multiple environments/services.

You know Duey, we spend ALOT of time in the military teaching the Estimate process.  So how come we spend so little time actually DOING estimates, particularly when it comes time to buying equipment?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on February 05, 2006, 13:19:24
I know SKT... ::) ...I was thinking about hopping over to the MMEV and MGS threads but would probably dig myself in too deep there...same issue IMHO, folks are not adhering to the basic tenets of the military estimate...it seems that many systems, and it's not just the Army or the Air Force, are being procured because they were simply a follow-on from some other pre-existing systems.  I would like to see somebody start from the ground up and say...

"OK, here is the spectrum of operations we want to be able to operate in.  Here are the effects we want to be able to produce while conducting these operations.  Here are the tactics, techniques, procedures and equipment that we need to produce those effects."

This would get the material and the personnel issues sorted out to make things happen in a holistic manner that maximized effectiveness (notice I didn't say efficiency...that's often an MBA-ism that is not nearly as useful a metric as effectiveness...actually getting the ob done) of the generated forces.

2 more ¢

Cheers,
Duey
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Bert on March 18, 2006, 14:07:48
Another angle on JSF procurement is technology transfer and ownership.  Here is an arcticle that tells
of British issue with the possibility of American controlled software in the JSF.   A country buys the
aircraft but the US maintains control over the technology and ultimately whether the aircraft works or
not. 

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2152035/joint-strike-fighter
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Blue Max on March 31, 2006, 05:15:21
The more I read about the JSF trial and tribulations the more I think Canada should keep its money and either buy the F-15K or Euro-Fighter, IMHO.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16906677.1134288011.Q5vci8Oa9dUAAD0yqTM&modele=jdc_34

Tactical Aircraft: Recapitalization Goals Are Not Supported by F-22A and JSF Business Cases
Source: US Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Dated March 16, released March 17, 2006; 27 pages in PDF format

This document is the testimony before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the House Armed Services Committee of Michael Sullivan, Director of GAO for Acquisition and Sourcing Management.
Unsurprisingly, given past GAO reports, he paints a dismal picture if the Pentagon’s management of its F-22A and JSF fighter programs, which together represent about $320 billion in investments.

Both programs continue to be burdened with risk. The F-22A business case is unexecutable in part because of a 198 aircraft gap between the Air Force requirement and what DOD estimates it can afford. The JSF program, which has 90 percent of its investments still in the future, plans to concurrently test and produce aircraft thus weakening DOD’s business case and jeopardizing its recapitalization efforts. It plans to begin producing aircraft in 2007 with less than 1 percent of the flight test program completed.

Furthermore, Sullivan notes that DOD has not presented an investment strategy for tactical aircraft systems that measures needs, capability gaps, alternatives, and affordability, and that DOD’s 2006 QDR report, issued last month, did not present a detailed investment strategy for tactical aircraft systems that addressed needs, capability gaps, alternatives, and affordability.

Full text


Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Lancaster on April 06, 2006, 16:03:23
I don’t know if Canada afford the Joint Strike fighter and how many fighters do we need? Australia is looking at spending about approximately $11.0 U.S. Billion for 100 fighters($110 U.S. million per fighter) and support structure(subcontracting work?) .If  Canada spends any where near Australia spends, then the  Joint Strike fighter will be potentially the “most costly Canadian military program ever”.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1597873&C=asiapac
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on April 06, 2006, 16:35:18
I just don't understand why we pre-pay for logistics and maintenance for 20-years for everything.  It seems like a huge waste of what little precious cash we actually have in-hand.


M.   ???
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on April 06, 2006, 17:04:25
We don't pre-pay (I wish we could...).  When you see a contract for 20 years of maintenance and support for $1 billion bucks (just to pluck a figure out of the air), it generally means that the CF will pay about $50 million/year (could be more or less, depending on the year) for the next 20 years.  Treasury Board wants the thru life costs accounted for upfront, is what I understand.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on April 06, 2006, 17:29:43
We don't pre-pay (I wish we could...).  When you see a contract for 20 years of maintenance and support for $1 billion bucks (just to pluck a figure out of the air), it generally means that the CF will pay about $50 million/year (could be more or less, depending on the year) for the next 20 years.  Treasury Board wants the thru life costs accounted for upfront, is what I understand.

I like that much better....thanks for the correction SKT.


Matthew.   :salute:  :cdn:
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Blue Max on April 22, 2006, 01:51:47
I believe the JSF is supposed to be a "Cheap-Bomb-Truck". Problem is that there is nothing cheap or proven about it.

Jet fighter costs go skyward as price of rival nosedives
By Tom Allard
April 20, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jet-fighter-costs-go-skyward-as-price-of-rival-nosedives/2006/04/19/1145344153546.html

THE F-22A Raptor strike jet - considered the best manned warplane yet - can be bought for about the same price that Australia will pay for the first batch of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, new figures show.

The data from the US Department of Defence highlights a disturbing trend for the Government: as the price of the F-22A declines, the cost of the Joint Strike Fighter is rapidly increasing.

"It's extremely concerning," said Dennis Jensen, a Coalition MP and a former defence scientist. "What I want to know is how does Defence get the numbers so wrong?"

As well as posing fresh questions over defence costings, the new figures will rekindle debate about whether Australia will get the right aircraft to maintain its long-held air superiority in the region.

The Joint Strike Fighter is Australia's preferred option to replace its FA-18 and F-111s, at a cost of $15 billion.

However, the Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Houston, has said the F-22A "will be the most outstanding fighter aircraft ever built" and possibly the "end of the line in manned fighters".

It can travel at supersonic speeds without afterburners, has unprecedented stealthiness and can launch missiles out of range of other fighter jets and air defence networks.

The problem has always been price. Australia's military has insisted it is at least three times as expensive as the Joint Strike Fighter and simply unaffordable.

But the latest US Department of Defence selected acquisition report, released earlier this month, shows that the F-22A can be bought for $US127 million ($172 million) each.

That is down 17 per cent on figures quoted two years ago.

In the meantime, the same report shows the total cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program has leapt 8 per cent in the past three months, with each plane costing about $US95 million ($128 million), after stripping out development costs.

Separate figures from the US Government Accountability Office, released in March, showed the cost of the Joint Strike Fighters would be much higher for those, like Australia, who are buying planes produced early in the manufacturing cycle. Australia wants 100 planes and will order its first batch in 2010 for delivery in 2012.

According to the US figures, the average cost of Joint Strike Fighters produced this year will be $US125 million. That cost gradually decreases over the 20-year life of the program.

Air Commodore John Harvey, director-general of the RAAF's new air capability project, said the cost of the variant Australia is buying would average about $100 million, including support. Even at the lower price, the F-22A would be "twice the price" of the Joint Strike Fighter, he said.

While Defence was keeping a "watching brief" on the changing price, "nothing in our analysis has fundamentally changed", he said.

But Dr Jensen said the new US figures should ring alarm bells, especially as the Joint Strike Fighter - still under development - was untested and costs were likely to blow out further.

Labor's defence spokesman, Robert McClelland, said: "The Government should really re-examine its decision on the JSF. The [F-22A] Raptor has known capability, while the JSF's has yet to be determined."

Canada is supposed to be getting the JSF to replace the F-18, but there is no proof that the JSF can take on the role of an interceptor, especially IMHO over the three oceans surounding Canada along with our great white north, on only ONE engine.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: FormerHorseGuard on April 22, 2006, 14:59:58
I think every time there is a new weapons system made and just about to be sold you  will find various people come out of the woods and tell us all what is wrong with it. I always wonder are these people being paid by the other company who designed something else and not sold to the branch of the service requiring the new kit.
I remember when the CF 18 was about to enter service in Canada, the stories of how bad this aricraft was and how it was a lemon and the taxpayers should ask for the money back. ( yes there were some problems, experts here will remember most of them, cracked mounts is the one i remember most) , but that happens in all new systems, does not mean it is wrong design or whatever. The big 3 car makers have 100 000 of recalls every time you look around, does it make them bad auto makers?

I have no idea what  Canada needs for new fighter/ attack aircraft, not in my line of arm chair expert knowledge.  I do not know what any other country  needs, but I do know almost every country is now flying 70s designs, built in the 80s and flying in the 2006 time period. some aircraft out there are 60s designs, built in the 70s and flying today. Some designs in the 50s are still flying in active service. People have to remember it takes years to design and then years to build it.

Does Canada need the JSF, or the new Euro aircraft, or what model. Everyone has an opinion but me. I will tell you this much it be twice as much as off the shelf models because the government will demand Canadian Content etc.
I would like to see an airframe that  will have dual engines, stable of canadian airforce ideas, too much water to fly over here. comms equipment so they can chat with other airforces in the action area, weapons system to defend the pilot and take out the target. It will have to be a multi purpose aircraft, fighter bomber as we all know it will be hard to maintain 2 airframes and have enough of both to do anything with.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: joshi on April 22, 2006, 20:43:51
What people do not realize is that the JSF is a fifth generation plane which will replace frontline jets not only in Canada, but also the US, Britiain, Australia and many other allied countries such as Greece, Turkey, Japan to name a few. And this means that a lot of these jets will be produced in thousands as there are virtually no competitiors in the field disregarding the Eurofighter and the Rafale which is another thread. Since Canada is a major contributor in this program we will be positively affected and prices such as, $110 million per unit stated here is not true if one were to keep in mind that prices drop as more aircraft are porduced over time and the need of an aircraft such as the JSF in the future will be very high indeed. Also, the arguement of the JSF being a single engine airplane making it less effective in some way is also false, just look at the F-16 an all round multiurpose single engine fighter which is battle proven. Plus, planes such as Eurofighter and Rafale are still 4+ generation not providing an AESA radar and very minimal to nill stealth characteristics and the price tag for them is $70+ million for the most basic version. By getting the JSF we get the best multipurpose plane in the market and one that has a very good future.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Argh to the Zee on April 22, 2006, 20:58:06
I would say, from reading about what the CF uses its combat aircraft for in the past, that somthing like the F-15E would be a suiting plane. Now I now the F-15E is a dated plane (i.e. its based of a 70's airframe with 80's electronics) and that it would not be prudent to buy them. But Somthing similar, like the Eurofighter or even Sukhoi's new (currently in serial production with 8 in service) Su-34. (yes its russian, but its not exactly a old MiG-29A with turbojets instead of turbofans and vacume tube electronics) But somthing like that. twin engine, supersonic multi role with a big payload of ATG (which is mostly what seems to be employed in current operations) but that can still scrap pretty well in ATA (They can turn fast, ability to take modern missiles like AMRAAM or AA-12, good radar units ect) The JSF, will encompasing most of these, is IMHO, lacking in combat radius, and in ATG stores. It doesnt have a big payload (2000lbs...one Mk84)

Just the laymen opinion of a person in the recruiting process who happens to be a civil aviation student and a bit of a plane nut/nerd.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on April 22, 2006, 21:05:32
What people do not realize is that the JSF is a fifth generation plane which will replace frontline jets not only in Canada, but also the US, Britiain, Australia and many other allied countries such as Greece, Turkey, Japan to name a few. And this means that a lot of these jets will be produced in thousands as there are virtually no competitiors in the field disregarding the Eurofighter and the Rafale which is another thread. Since Canada is a major contributor in this program we will be positively affected and prices such as, $110 million per unit stated here are totally baseless. Also, the arguement of the JSF being a single engine airplane making it less effective in some way is also false, just look at the F-16 an all round multiurpose single engine fighter which is battle proven. Plus, planes such as Eurofighter and Rafale are still 4+ generation not providing an AESA radar and very minimal to nill stealth characteristics and the price tag for them is $70+ million for the most basic version. By getting the JSF we get the best multipurpose plane in the market and one that can give us the edge when needed.

The F-16 is combat proven, that i cannot deny.  However, what YOU are not realizing is that the F-16 was rejected by canada and one of the reason was the fact that it is single-engined.  I would like for you to explain how you see the price tags for JSF as baseless.

Rafale and Typhoon :  The nation using these fighters have made a concious decision based on capabilities and cost when they puchased these types. European countries did not see the lack of stealth as that much of a detriment.  Do you have some magical insight that contradicts several of the major European air forces ?  Dont forget that several countries ( South Africa,Hungary and The Chez republic) have chosen the JAS 39 Grippen for their fighter needs ( if i have to remind you , Grippen is a single-engined fighter of the not that stealthy type).  Algeria is considering buying the raffale as well.  Stealth technology ( low observables byt its correct name BTW) is not the be-all - end - all of aviation.

lastly, when you say that if we get JSF, we will get the best multi-purpose plane on the market, i beleive you faith is rather hasty as the F-35 has yet to prove itself at anything. It is not yet lown operationaly by anyone, anywhere.  lets see what happens during full-scale developement, how it fares when it eventualy reaches IOC (initial operating capability) and finaly full scale squadron service.  This is an abitious program to produce a "jack of all trades" aircraft.  Remember the F-111 program ?  the navy abandoned it because , although it sounded good on paper, the naval version (F-111B) did not meet the navy's needs.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: joshi on April 22, 2006, 21:49:07
The reason why the European countries bought the Eurofighter is due to the reason that they were a part of EADS and had millions invested in the development process of the plane itself. Even BAe who had were a major player in that program ended up selling part of their share in EADs. Ok, given that the European countries have procured these planes, but have you looked at the numbers? Maybe its a stop gap measure, who knows? However I may not be right in that conclusion but then again I am no policy maker and have no great insights. As for the Gripen I do not see the point that you are trying to make as it is moot.
Plus you have mainly focused on the point of stealth. However, the point i was trying to get across is that technologically, meaning not only stealth, but also its AESA radar that the Eurofighter does not posses and still will not be available until Tranche III, the JSF is better. Also Canadian industry and private sector will be affected adversly if the Air Force suddenly decided to get the Eurofighter as we hav already invested millions in development. Also, keep in mind by staying with the JSF program we are gauranteed benefits as some of the parts of the plane itself will be developed and produced in Canada as under agreement.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: joshi on April 22, 2006, 22:02:03
When the CF-18 retires around 2017 it wil be replaced only by the JSF and that can be easily be guessed the policies that are in place today. There must be a huge political frameshift in foreign policy especially regarding our military that other choices can be made and even then will be affected by our neighbour to the south.   
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on April 22, 2006, 22:22:43
I'm not disagreeing with you on the politics.  I am disagreeing with you on your faith in JSF.  Saying the JSF is the best multi-purpose aircraft on the market is like saying that the 2010 Dodge ram is the best truck on the market ; nobody owns one, no one has ever used one.  It may look great on paper but that does not mean it will necessarily see operational service or be the best out there.  The US Army not that long ago cancelled what was touted as the "be-all-end-all" of hellicopters, the Comanche.


My point about the Grippen was that, although the JSF looks like a great fighter, it is not the solution for everyone.  Proof of that is that alot of countries are going by the way of Raffale, Typhoon, Grippen or Russin fighters.


When the CF-18 retires around 2017 it wil be replaced only by the JSF

Right........And back in 1990 we signed a contract to replace the sea kings with the EH-101.  Unless you have a political crystal ball, you have no idea whats going to happen when the CF-18 finaly gets replaced.  You are making assumptions that, although they sound good, ignore political realities
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: joshi on April 23, 2006, 01:06:56
My point about the Grippen was that, although the JSF looks like a great fighter, it is not the solution for everyone.  Proof of that is that alot of countries are going by the way of Raffale, Typhoon, Grippen or Russin fighters.
Ofcourse the JSF is not the solution for everyone. The French are going with the Rafale beczause they bulit it, the Eurofighter is a joint European project and thus European customers. The Gripen appeals to smaller air forces who do not have the big bucks to join something such as the JSF project and as for the russian fighters we see countries like China and India buying them. Countries, the US in the past has not dealt with due to reasons irrelevant. Excluding this group everyone else, who invest heavily in their military and look at the West for their military supplies will be replacing their frontline jets and the JSF will be a heavy contender in such a race.
Plus, if one is talking of such a topic assumptions must be made and i assure you none of them were ignorant but rather kept in mind the current political point of view of such matters. Oh how I wish I had a crystal ball ;)
And the reason the Commanche was cancelled was because the role that it was built for had other cheaper avenues(UAV's and Apache mix). But I doubt such faith will meet the JSF, UCAV's are still a long way coming atleast i hope so.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on April 23, 2006, 01:14:00
Ofcourse the JSF is not the solution for everyone. The French are going with the Rafale beczause they bulit it, the Eurofighter is a joint European project and thus European customers. The Gripen appeals to smaller air forces who do not have the big bucks to join something such as the JSF project and as for the russian fighters we see countries like China and India buying them. Countries, the US in the past has not dealt with due to reasons irrelevant. Excluding this group everyone else, who invest heavily in their military and look at the West for their military supplies will be replacing their frontline jets and the JSF will be a heavy contender in such a race.
Plus, if one is talking of such a topic assumptions must be made and i assure you none of them were ignorant but rather kept in mind the current political point of view of such matters. Oh how I wish I had a crystal ball ;)
And the reason the Commanche was cancelled was because the role that it was built for had other cheaper avenues(UAV's and Apache mix). But I doubt such faith will meet the JSF, UCAV's are still a long way coming atleast i hope so.

I am aware fo the multitude of reason why Comanch was cancelled i was in the US when the plans for Army aviation rationalization were anounced.  My point was tht the US isnt afraid of cancelling large projects in which vast sums of money and effort have been spent.  With the current political climate in Washignton about JSF and its cost, the future of JSF is uncertain.  UCAVs are not that far off.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Argh to the Zee on April 23, 2006, 13:59:47
I am going to add my piece of what I think would be the common sense thing to do, and it requires no knowledege of the airplanes or even the military to a great degree. Since the JSF isnt really out yet, the Eurofighter is only been delievered to one nation, the Su-34 has been delieved in the number of 8 airframes, and the Su-35/37 and the new PAK and Su-47 not even past prototype, The Rafale just being delivered to French Air Force and the Grippen not having done much, and the CF-18 in service til prolly 2017, it might be prudent to wait and see how all these new and amazing aircraft perform in the real world, and then make a decision. Just like Im not sure if in 2017 I will buy AMD Intel or a Mac.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: joshi on April 23, 2006, 19:51:41
haha..so i guess we can carry out this conversation 11 years from now.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on May 11, 2006, 13:50:50
Reopening for discussion:

Article from DID on the Norwegian kerfuffle over JSF/F35  http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/05/norways-future-fighter-competition-a-norwegian-view/index.php#more

Norwegians now looking at F35/Gripen/Typhoon/Rafale - Pricing cited as primary reason but other political and commercial considerations as well.

Lockheed Martin has come forward with a new "guaranteed" price lower than Typhoon

48 x F35 for 3.26 BUSD or 68 MUSD per copy.  Considerably cheaper than some recent estimates.  Especially vice the 200 MUSD ??IIRC?? tag  suggested for an F22.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Armymatters on May 18, 2006, 04:48:24
An update on JSF progress this year:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/05/f35-joint-strike-fighter-sdd-contracts-events-fy-2006/index.php#more
I think this is the major kicker here:
Quote
March 23/06: British JSF Prospects Looking Up. Good news: technology transfer issues may be solvable. Bad news: JSF's stealth profile will be worse in order to contain costs. This article also contains a complete set of links to DID stories covering the friction between the JSF program's two Tier 1 partners.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: joshi on May 18, 2006, 15:21:39
Defense news
USAF: JSF Price Swells to $82M Per Plane
Quote:
DoD Notifies Congress of Higher Cost
By LAURA M. COLARUSSO

The cost of the U.S. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program has risen to $82.1 million, enough to require the Pentagon to notify Congress, which it has done, according to Air Force officials.
Surging material costs, especially for aluminum and titanium; the addition of another wing production line in Italy; and program restructuring are to blame, according to Air Force sources.
The price tag for a single JSF has risen by 33 percent since 2001, when the average plane cost $61.8 million, the sources said.
Spokesmen for the JSF program and builder Lockheed Martin did not return phone calls seeking comment.
The JSF is among dozens of Air Force programs whose costs are outpacing their budgets enough to require a congressional report under the Nunn-McCurdy law. Changes to the law in the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act have made it more common for programs to be in violation. Before 2006, the services had to notify Congress if they saw an increase of 15 percent from year to year.
If the cost grew by 25 percent, the services had to report the breach and justify the program based on national security needs. With the 2006 authorization bill changes, Congress must be notified of programs that see a 30 percent cost growth over their original baseline budget.
Prime contractor Lockheed Martin’s “teaming restructure” with the company’s subcontractors will cost about $1 billion, sources said.
The Air Force is facing $6.1 billion in shortfalls for growing requirements and aircraft upgrades as officials begin preliminary work on the 2008 budget submission. One large portion of that is spare parts, which the Air Force “didn’t take into account” when it budgeted for the program, an Air Force source said.
In January, JSF program officials disclosed the total overrun is estimated to be about $19 billion, the sources said. The Air Force portion of that is about $9.3 billion, they said.
Another Air Force source called the service’s current funding for the JSF program “insufficient to meet all requirements.”
Air Force plans call for buying 1,763 F-35s, but service officials acknowledged they might not be able to afford that many. To make up for the cost overruns, the Air Force is studying how many aircraft it should give up.
One option includes cutting 55 aircraft from the Air Force’s proposed buy. Another option could be to acquire 82 fewer aircraft. A third option would have the Air Force buy 89 fewer aircraft.
Sources cautioned, however, no decisions have been made.
This is not the first time the $250 billion program has run into cost problems. In 2004, program officials acknowledged the aircraft was about 1,000 pounds overweight. That added about a year to the developmental testing, which in turn boosted the cost of the program by about $5 billion.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Lancaster on June 15, 2006, 17:36:29
The folowing websites are interesting read on Joint Strike Fighter in Australia ,the first site is short but the second is 67 pages long from the Australian senate committee.

1)joint strike fighter  progress and issues for Australia:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2005-06/06rn32.pdf

2)Australia defence force regional air superiority.
quote by Air Marshall Sheppard on page 45 :“the F-35 ....when integrated into the newtwork force of  AWEC(airborne early warning control).... is as much as a sensor as it it as a shooter....”
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/joint/commttee/J9128.pdf


Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Philltaj on June 16, 2006, 11:17:16
There has been alot of talk around the bush recently of speculation that the JSF and F-22 may in fact end up costing roughly the same 10 years from now.  Can anyone shed any light on this, I am by means a expert. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Armymatters on June 26, 2006, 20:19:43
More issues with JSF:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19570919-601,00.html

Quote
AUSTRALIA'S biggest-ever defence project, the $16 billion Joint Strike Fighter, has potential flaws that could reduce the world's newest warplane to just an "average aircraft", according to internal Defence Department documents.

The documents reveal the JSF is beset with serious software problems and a cockpit display system so bad it had to be almost completely redesigned.


Quote
Opposition defence spokesman Robert McClelland warned yesterday that the JSF's problems, and possible delays in its delivery, could leave Australia with a dangerous gap in air capability.

"Billion-dollar bungles like the Government's mismanagement of the Super Seasprite helicopter project could really pale in comparison to this unprecedented $16 billion project -- big enough to account for almost the entire annual Defence budget," Mr McClelland said.

"If Labor win Government we will closely examine the option of acquiring F-22 Raptors, at least in the initial procurement phase, to ensure Australia does not forfeit regional air superiority between retirement of the F-111s in 2012 and delivery of replacement JSFs in 2015 at the earliest and more likely 2017."

Looks like we have a potential F-22 Raptor customer instead...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on June 26, 2006, 20:23:44
Quote
Joint Strike Fighter Is Not ‘Flawed’
 
 
(Source: Australian Department of Defence; issued June 24, 2006)
 
 
 Defence strongly disagrees with media reporting today that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is ‘flawed’  and should be abandoned. This reporting, following on from a newspaper article today, misrepresents the true status of the JSF program. 
 
The original media report draws on excerpts from two risk assessments in 2005  by Australia’s Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), which identified possible risks with aspects of the JSF program at that time.   
Contrary to media reporting that the DSTO assessments showed the JSF program to be flawed, these assessments are a good example of best practice project management to identify risk and to take early steps to reduce or eliminate it. 
 
In relation to the JSF cockpit display, an alternative technology has been identified as having reached a stage of maturity where it can now be incorporated – resulting in only one element of the display system needing change. This means that the cockpit display issue identified by DSTO in 2005 has been overcome and is no longer of concern. 
 

In terms of the risk report relating to computing and software, there is no doubt the JSF will be heavily reliant on massive computing power and a lot of software – which is exactly why the JSF will be more capable than any other fighter aircraft. 
 
As a result of DSTO’s risk assessments in 2005, the following actions have been taken: 
 
-- A DSTO specialist has been posted to the US for fulltime monitoring of JSF computing and software development; 
 
-- Lockheed Martin is providing excellent support with information on computing and software development; and 
 
-- DSTO is acquiring specialised computer hardware in order for Australia to undertake our own further assessments of performance in the JSF program. 
 
Lockheed Martin itself has risk mitigation strategies in place to provide additional computing capacity if required. 
 
One of the key benefits Australia derives from being a partner in the JSF project is obtaining detailed inside knowledge on the development of the aircraft and the consequent ability to assess any potential issues first hand. 
 
This enables Defence to accurately understand the maturity of the JSF’s development and its potential as a highly capable military platform. 
 
Defence has full confidence that the stealthy, fifth-generation, multi-role JSF will mature on time to provide Australia’s future air combat capability in the most effective way. 
 
By the time the Australian Government decides whether to acquire the JSF, this aircraft will have been subject to more detailed technical analysis than any other Defence project in Australia’s history. This ongoing detailed technical analysis is appropriate to the importance and level of investment in the project. 
 
-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: big bad john (John Hill) on July 07, 2006, 22:15:37
From todays Army Times Early Bird, I thought that this would be of interest:

'Lightning' To Strike Again With The JSF
Air Force General Picks Jet's Nickname Based On 'Heritage And History'
(Dallas Morning News, July 7, 2006)
Lightning II will be the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's official nickname-a decision the Air Force chief of staff will announce today at Lockheed Martin's plant in Fort Worth, Tex. Gen. T. Michael "Buzz" Moseley chose Lightning II for the new multiservice stealth fighter because of the name's "heritage and history," said a Pentagon official. The original Lockheed P-38 Lightning was one of the most famous fighter planes of World War II.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: cobbler on July 07, 2006, 22:52:00
More issues with JSF:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19570919-601,00.html


Looks like we have a potential F-22 Raptor customer instead...

Not going to happen.

I could take this thread way off course, but in short...

Australian Labor Party = bunch of know-nothing Defence-hating duds
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 26, 2006, 10:41:44
By a certain journalist:

Canada to spend more money on U.S.-led military plans [sic]: Stealthy aircraft
http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/060926/npt/060926b4.htm

Quote
Canada is expected to spend more money on a U.S.-led program to build a multi-billion-dollar stealthy aircraft even as some defence analysts are questioning the usefulness of such planes for missions in failed states such as Afghanistan.

Negotiations between the U.S. and Canadian governments for more Canadian participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program are continuing with an agreement expected to be signed sometime in December, according to military and aerospace officials.

Representatives with the plane's manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, were in Ottawa yesterday to meet with industry and government officials concerning Canadian participation of the program...

Canada has not officially committed to purchasing the futuristic plane [note: the experimental version first flew in 2000] but Defence Department planners are setting the stage for that [those sneaky and profligate devils!].

Military officials expect the Joint Strike Fighter to be purchased sometime around 2017 when the current fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft are retired. Documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen estimate the cost to replace the CF-18s would be $10.5-billion.

But some defence analysts have questioned the worth of high-tech aircraft in the war on terror. They note planes that can fly slower and spend more time over the battlefield are of more value in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Such propeller-driven planes are also inexpensive to buy and operate, with some types costing around $15-million each...

But some defence analysts have questioned the worth of high-tech aircraft in the war on terror. They note planes that can fly slower and spend more time over the battlefield are of more value in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Such propeller-driven planes are also inexpensive to buy and operate, with some types costing around $15-million each...

This is what the Ottawa Citizen's headline writers came up with (full text subscribers only):
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=53d50e2d-915c-4397-a345-34174fa49af8

Quote
Critics doubt value of high-tech jets
 More spending expected despite analysts' criticism of proposed fighters

See this post at The Torch:

Article attacks possible Canadian F-35 purchase
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/09/article-attacks-possible-canadian-f-35.html

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on September 27, 2006, 10:28:23
AThe full-length article as it appeared in yesterday's National Post is available via the Canadian Forces College's "Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs" page at http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotlight/2006/09/26/spotnews_e.html

The last part of the article states that:

"A recent report by the Rand Corp., a U.S. defence think-tank, questioned the Pentagon's use of high-tech fighter jets for counter-insurgency wars, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. It recommended keeping such planes for future conflicts with other nations.

"However, the report also recommended ensuring a fleet of less-expensive aircraft is available for the counter-insurgency wars, which will be a fixture on the world stage for quite some time.

"Some in the Canadian Forces have also been advocating the purchase of less-expensive, armed aerial drones instead of a plane like the Joint Strike Fighter.

"But Mr. Burbage said the Joint Strike Fighter will save money in the long run by allowing nations to fly essentially the same plane, sharing expenses on maintenance and operations. Nine nations are currently involved in the aircraft program.

"Mr. Burbage also noted that it is too difficult to predict what future conflicts will look like.

" 'The view that today's threat doesn't operate front-line airplanes is a pretty myopic view,' he said.

"The first Joint Strike Fighter is expected to start flying in tests sometime by the end of the year. Once accepted into military service it will operate until 2040 or 2050."

The other side of the argument was given there. I do not know if that part appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. I've no idea who "Some in the Canadian Forces" are.
 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: mjohnston39 on September 27, 2006, 18:10:58
Too bad that the article didn't mention the huge returns Canadian companies and Canada (all ready recieving more than 1.5B$ according to LM) will recieve over the life of the program for what amounts to a very small investment...
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/11209.pdf
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ip/docs/jsf_international_industrial_participation_study.pdf#search=%22JSF%20contracts%20by%20country%22

Mike
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Barracuda13 on September 28, 2006, 22:43:41
"But some defence analysts have questioned the worth of high-tech aircraft in the war on terror. They note planes that can fly slower and spend more time over the battlefield are of more value in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Such propeller-driven planes are also inexpensive to buy and operate, with some types costing around $15-million each..."

Doesn't make sense, ... Who knows we are going to be in Afghanistan in 2017? And I think no plane is really useful in these places, they hide in huge caves or hide in civilian settlements. So you ll probably need a really low flying slow plane. Look what happened in Lebanon , they precision bombed !!! the whole city of Beirut and got a huge backlash from the international community. I believe Canada should be in JSF for couple of reasons if LM promises more projects for us and more open share of technology. I don t know if we'll still be at war in Afghanistan but definitely we'll be active in NORAD and future NATO missions too . So I support the JSF for now.

Propeller driven slow planes?? I think we can spend even less than 15m$ , how about bi-planes? slow, inexpensive and we can spend all day buzzing over the battlefield :)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 28, 2006, 23:09:37
Barracuda13:
http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Aircraft/Swordfish.htm

 ;)

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Babbling Brooks on October 13, 2006, 10:59:30
Nick Packwood at Ghost of a Flea (http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/008653.html) put it well the other day, albeit wrt U.S. DDX destroyers, but the principle applies to any high-tech, leading-edge weapons system:

Quote
There are some who wonder if multi-billion dollar big-ship, big-gun defense acquisitions are a sensible investment in an era of asymmetric warfare. These same folks rarely pause to wonder just why our enemies have had to resort to asymmetric warfare in the first place. By all means, let us continue to limit their options. After all, you do not cancel your fire insurance because your basement has flooded.

I'm with Nick: the minute the West stops investing in a dominating weapons arsenal is the minute the asymmetric gnat-biting stops and we get our asses handed to us in a conventional war.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Babbling Brooks on December 11, 2006, 17:29:24
According to Lockheed Martin's PR firm, Canada has signed a Memorandum of Understanding to participate in the next phase of F-35 development.

Details here: http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/mou-for-f-35-jsf.html

The quoted text is copied directly from their press release, btw.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: schart28 on December 11, 2006, 17:33:22
FIRST F-35 EXITS LOCKHEED MARTIN FACTORY, PREPARES FOR TESTING

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17467&rsbci=0&fti=112&ti=0&sc=400



Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 16, 2006, 17:19:50
"CF-18 replacement possibilities

Not just the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter..." (post includes link to photos of F-35 first flight)
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/cf-18-replacement-possibilities.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: geo on December 16, 2006, 22:48:10
The stealthy F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th-generation fighter designed to replace aging AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers.

... the million dollar question will be... what is the unit price of one of those babies?

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: peaches on December 16, 2006, 23:05:13
Everything I have read so far puts it between $40 - 60 million US.  I am guessing the VTOL types would be more expensive.  We would most likely purchase the F35A models, the UASF version.  My concern as an Air Defence officer is their range and how well they would operate in the high artic, lots of empty space between airports there.....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Babbling Brooks on June 28, 2007, 10:52:01
Lockheed Martin has commissioned a number of artist's concepts of the F-35 Lightning II's in various national paint schemes and settings.  The Canadian painting, by Robert Lundquist of British Columbia, can be viewed here:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/canada-and-f-35-non-story.html

There's some debate in the comments as to the wisdom of investing in the F-35, so feel free to weigh in - here or there.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Mr.Newf on June 28, 2007, 10:58:30
Nice! Thanks for posting that up.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: geo on June 28, 2007, 17:32:48
nice picture.... are those the only two we will be able to afford?  :)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Astrodog on June 29, 2007, 10:41:26
Nice painting, though I wish they had used our current CF-18 scheme as opposed to the US F-16 scheme... also missing a dummy canopy!!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Spencer100 on June 29, 2007, 11:51:31
Nice painting, though I wish they had used our current CF-18 scheme as opposed to the US F-16 scheme... also missing a dummy canopy!!

Would we use the dunny canopy paint scheme on new fighters?  Or would we something new? 

Question:  Has the dummy canopy been shown to work in dog fights? 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on June 29, 2007, 12:14:10
"If" the JSF is problematic in the Arctic, what would the US use in Alsaka?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Spencer100 on June 29, 2007, 12:35:44
"If" the JSF is problematic in the Arctic, what would the US use in Alsaka?

F-22 Raptor,  The US is going to station the raptor up North.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123024586 (ftp://http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123024586)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Mr.Newf on June 29, 2007, 12:38:26
"If" the JSF is problematic in the Arctic, what would the US use in Alaska?
F-22 Raptor,  The US is going to station the raptor up North.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123024586 (ftp://http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123024586)
Hmm, I wonder what we would use in the Arctic?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Spencer100 on June 29, 2007, 12:50:28
Hmm, I wonder what we would use in the Arctic?

I would guess we would use what we have.   It the monent it looks like we are going to get the Lightening II.  But anything could happen. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Babbling Brooks on June 29, 2007, 14:57:15
Anything could happen at this point, you're right.

It's easy to forget that at this point, the gov't looks at the money invested in the F-35 program as the price of admission into the defence contract bonanza that this project has spawned.  For a $150M investment so far, Cdn firms have won approx $500M in contracts - plus we're able to get in on the ground floor if we want to order some of the end-product when it becomes available.

This is about industrial benefits at this point, not about defence procurement, IMO.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on June 29, 2007, 15:49:10
Although it probably won't happen, an hypothetical FB-35 (a stretched airframe like the hypothetical FB-22 Raptor) would probably be much closer to what we actually "need" in terms of range, as well as the utility of having a much larger potential payload (not just bombs and missiles; think EF-35 or RF-35....)

Given the size of the program and the potential user base, there are several potential customers who could use something along these lines; I'm a bit surprised this idea hasn't surfaced before.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: peaches on June 30, 2007, 13:28:49
As an Air Defence officer I think the best fighter to replace our F18 fleet would be the F22.  It has the range, speed, weapons capability, ISAR/data link capability we need, but it's price tag is too much.  The F35A fighter variant is most likey what we'll get.  The number I have heard is 80, too few.

Our fighter force has two main functions, homeland air defence with NORAD and deployed operations to support the CF/NATO.  As it stands now we can do both missions with 80 jets, but not at the same time.  The number of fighters we need (IMHO) to effectively do the air defence and expeditionary job concurrently starts at about 120+.  They also need to be properly kitted out, JDAM,JSOW etc for AG ops and up to date AA missiles.  Then you need to include the willingness to use them which is currently lacking.

You can have 5 million fighters, if they are not kitted out properly and not used, what good are they?????
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: cameron on June 30, 2007, 14:23:49
Babbling Brooks has a point but I certainly hope that Canada purchases these planes.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: thunderchild on October 03, 2008, 15:41:27
The JSF is listed as $88 million (US) but that is for a LRIP of 6 aircraft.having some B model JSF would be useful but I don't know about servicing requirements.  I think there are better options for Canada, maybe a 2 aircraft type fighter fleet might be a better approach.
my choices would be a F/A-18E/f Block 3 for airdefence and something smaller for foreign deployment.  opinions.....?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: DevoBab on October 26, 2008, 16:04:49
I'm certainly no expert, but having F/A-18E/f for air defence makes a lot of sense and would be a smart transition from what we fly now. As far as sending a different type overseas, what about the Gripen? I know there aren't a lot in service in comparison to some aircraft, but from what I've read they are a decent price, fairly small, developed to land on public roads etc. It seems to be perfect for expeditionary purposes.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on October 28, 2008, 02:24:02
The JSF is listed as $88 million (US) but that is for a LRIP of 6 aircraft.having some B model JSF would be useful but I don't know about servicing requirements.  I think there are better options for Canada, maybe a 2 aircraft type fighter fleet might be a better approach.
my choices would be a F/A-18E/f Block 3 for airdefence and something smaller for foreign deployment.  opinions.....?

We have a hard time as-is maintaining one fleet of fighters, nevermind finding people to maintain and fly two types. B model JSF's would be kinda pointless since we have no aircraft carriers, and we aren't exactly in need of VTOL fighters right now. IMO, there is no point in buying 4th gen fighters in the E/F model F-18's, we would be right back where we started in 5-10 years. The Superbugs are also mabye 15-20% compatible with the C/D models, so retraining would be required anyways. As far as deployments, the fighters aren't going anywhere. The ramp in Afghanistan is full and the cost to deploy 6 fighters overseas is immense.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 28, 2008, 03:39:37
IMO, there is no point in buying 4th gen fighters in the E/F model F-18's, we would be right back where we started in 5-10 years.

How about a fraction of the cost of what the JSF will cost (read, buy MORE)?  Why do we need a "5th" generation fighter again?  Why not a 4.5th generation?  Can we afford everything that goes with that 5th generation fighter to make it a real 5th generation fighters (EW, Weapons, etc). What about having a 2nd engine?  I don't care what YOU or the engineer that designed the engine think about 1 or 2 engines, in the end, you are not the one that's going to fly it over Northern Canada in the dead of the Winter.  And I don't care how you say that this engine is supposed to be extra-reliable.  Isn't that why we chose the Hornet over the Viper in the first place?

The Superbugs are also mabye 15-20% compatible with the C/D models, so retraining would be required anyways. 

Yup, however, seeing something similar, flying with the same stick, the same throttle, DDIs in the same position, similar ergonomy, same or similar HUD information, similar way of handling, generally, very similar (but not identical) systems may seem stupid to you, but it's all things that, IMO, would make the transition smoother.  Obviously we're going to need training for anything we decide to do.  Gosh, training is required for ANYTHING we add onto the airplane (going onto the R2, yes they needed retraining).

If you don't believe me that having a totally different ergonomic makes a huge difference, and that as professional we should be able to adapt (we should be but we're all human, right?) go read the accident report of Hawk 155202.  While it's not a cause of the accident, it certainly worth mentionning what happened.  Old habbits are hard to break, even after hours and hours of training.  When things go wrong, you revert to what you know best.  I can't talk for everyone, but as soon as I put that helmet on, I become about 10 times more retarded that I was already on the ground.  Suddently, adding 12 to 29 becomes quite the challenge...

To sum up, the Super Hornet, being much cheaper, an excellent platform, something similar to what we already have and having 2 engines,  would make IMHO a GREAT replacement!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on October 28, 2008, 04:24:58
How about a fraction of the cost of what the JSF will cost (read, buy MORE)?  Why do we need a "5th" generation fighter again?  Why not a 4.5th generation? 

Hell, why do we need fighters at all? The Hawks can take out a Russian bear and an Airliner just as well as the 82 Hornet can. A Superbug will last you until mabye 2030, while the JSF will be around until 2050.

Quote
What about having a 2nd engine?  I don't care what YOU or the engineer that designed the engine think about 1 or 2 engines, in the end, you are not the one that's going to fly it over Northern Canada in the dead of the Winter.  And I don't care how you say that this engine is supposed to be extra-reliable.  Isn't that why we chose the Hornet over the Viper in the first place?

The government must surely know that the JSF has only one engine, otherwise why would they still be interested? Engines are the most reliable part of a fighter, they have to be. Even now with the current Hornets, they almost never come back U/S and it's an extremely rare occurrence that there is a inflight emergency due to engine problems. If I was a pilot, I'd be more concerned with the flight control system.

Quote
To sum up, the Super Hornet, being much cheaper, an excellent platform, something similar to what we already have and having 2 engines,  would make IMHO a GREAT replacement.

While that might be the case, I don't think that it purchasing a relatively outdated fighter is the right choice, just for the fact that it has two engines. Personally, I don't think the JSF is the right choice for Canada, but it looks to be the ONLY choice.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 28, 2008, 10:09:21
Hawks don't have radar or can't carry medium range weapons last time I strapped in.  That's a key point in having an efficient intercepter.  Plus, it's fairly slow at high altitudes and it can't get there fast.

How can you say the Superhornet will last until 2030?  What will break between now and then??

Yup, they know.  But the government aren't made of pilots.  Again, I absolutely don't care what YOU think about 1 vs 2 engines, you're not the one that will be flying it over Northern Canada...  And I'd like to argue that the ejection seat is the most reliable piece of kit in that airplane. However, if you succesfully eject up north un -40 Weather, I have great doubts you may be able to survive very long. Engine failure occurs, no matter what you say or think.  Have you heard about the Hawk that threw a blade back in April?  Maintenance was done in accordance to the books, the engine was flown in accordance to the book.  Just manufacturing defects.  What about the Hornet that trew a whole turbine disk last year?? As long as you have an engine designed by humans, manufactured (in whole or in parts) by humans, maintained by humans and flown by humans, it will be bound to break.

Why is the Super Hornet outdated again?   It can do everything we need it to do.  What does the JSF can do that we so need it to do compared to the Super Hornet?  Maybe you need to look again.  There are other choices out there.  The most logical one IMHO is the Super Hornet. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: ArmyRick on October 28, 2008, 11:14:56
From my understanding, Superhornets are whole new aircraft, not just simply re-built Hornets, is that correct? If that is the case, then maybe it has a whole life potential a head of it?

I really know AFV alot better than AC so bear with my ignorance.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 28, 2008, 14:58:19
Just food for your thoughts, NINJA:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/cf/CF188720-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/cf/CF188933-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/cf/CF188733-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/ct/CT155215-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/ct/CT155202-eng.asp

There are more occurences that are just not on the website.  If you have access to a FS computer, I suggest you try to read about that... 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on October 28, 2008, 15:42:29
Just food for your thoughts, NINJA:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/cf/CF188720-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/cf/CF188933-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/cf/CF188733-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/ct/CT155215-eng.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/reports-rapports/I/ct/CT155202-eng.asp

There are more occurences that are just not on the website.  If you have access to a FS computer, I suggest you try to read about that... 

Looks like someone might have gotten hung on a few of those occurrences, more so 733. Don't see how you could miss reinstalling a boroscope plug considering you need at least two sets of eyes before you even close the boroscope panel. I guess these things happen.

While I may agree that the Superbug might be a better, and cheaper alternative to the F-35, regardless of the two engine agreement, I don't think the government will consider this. I think they forget that if a F-35 purchase is to be approved, they won't have anywhere to put them. The current hangars barely fit all our sqn's hornets and that's only possible to the windfold system, the JSF doesn't have this. The only reason why dislike the SuperHornet is due to it's terrible Avionics serviceability. It's not called the Superbug for nothing. ;) I just hope the right people make the right choice for our next gen fighter. The only other two-engined alternative to the E/F is the Raptor. While it's costs are extremely high it's a far superior platform to anything else in the sky. It may not be available to export just yet, but who knows what might happen in 5 years.

EDIT: The F-35C does have a wingfold system.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: thunderchild on October 29, 2008, 15:40:37
Our only other options in the twin engine category are the Rafale and the EJ-2000 typhoon.  From what I've been reading in previous posts I think it's safe to say that any thing except the Rafale is preferred.  So how about the eurofighter typhoon? ideas?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: DevoBab on October 29, 2008, 19:55:54
Since operating two different fighters isn't realistic (one for home defence, the other in MUCH smaller numbers for expeditionary), it seems to me that the Eurofighter Typhoon would be a better buy.
Despite already having dedicated money to R&D on the JSF, Canadian companies were able to bid on the project which was likely the primary goal to begin with since we were a third tier partner.
So why not go the more cost effective route, while still getting a fairly comparable plane. Assuming what I read was true, Saudi Arabia is getting 72 Typhoons for approx. 6.4 billion. Now Harper lowered the original planned number of new fighters to 65, so with some doing we could likely get that number for close to $5 billion. From what I understand the Typhoon is a great fighter and they attempted to have it compete with the Raptor (although it didn't work out that well). The only thing it lacks in comparison to the JSF is range.
Just my two cents.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 29, 2008, 20:00:44
Should we not as the second largest nation on the planet factor range into any aircraft buy?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: DevoBab on October 29, 2008, 20:15:03
Absolutely. It's certainly not a perfect decision, but if the cost of the JSF gets to be too rich for our blood so to speak, the Typhoon seems to be a pretty good option. I'm saying this as a complete outsider, so I am completely willing to get shot down (no pun intended). I guess my response boils down to a question because I honestly don't know. How often does long range come in to play when flying a fighter? (I'm assuming these planes will mostly be used for Canadian defence rather than being sent overseas a previous post stated that sending fighters overseas is extremely expensive).

The Hornets have a states range of over 3,000 km. The JSF has a stated range of just over 2,000 km. The Typhoon has a measly 1,300 km. If range is a huge factor, does that mean no matter what plane we go with, we'll be losing range, and if so how much will that affect operations?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 29, 2008, 20:43:02
EDIT: The F-35C does have a wingfold system.

I agree the Raptor would be a nice platform.  However if they actually decide to make and export version, it would be serverly downgraded from the "real" Raptor.  Why pay the extra money for the export, when you won't even be able to benefit from what it was supposed to bring?  Again, I think the Super Hornet would be CHEAPER and we could get more.  I don't think the extra how ever many dollars would be worth the "dumbed down" F-22.

The F-35C may have a wingfold system, but it doesn't have a gun.  Not required anymore you'll say?  Read in history, see what happenned in Vietnam.

Range is important for a fighter, especially when defending Canada.  We have a LARGE territory and the North doesn't have bases every 200 nm like in the States.  The Eurofighter was, I think, designed for the typical small european country.

Anyways, these are my 250 cents
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: DevoBab on October 29, 2008, 20:48:48
That all makes sense, thank you.

So with such a huge country with limited airbases, would having two engines not be extremely important, along with range? If that is the case, the SUpoer Hornet seems to have all of those things, with a smaller price tag.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on October 30, 2008, 03:39:34
I don't think the extra how ever many dollars would be worth the "dumbed down" F-22.

I somehow doubt that we'll see a "dumbed down" version seeing how we are the US's greatest ally and share a vast airspace to the north. The only thing I can see the US withholding are some of the powerful, and highly secretive, Radar systems they have inside.

As far as the F-35, I think it's becoming a case of too little return for too much money. The fact that the price is approaching that of the F-22, an aircraft that outperforms it by a huge margin in almost every significant measure of performance is ridiculous. Also, there is no evidence that the F-35 will be able to hang with 4th generation Russian fighters in the case of BVR engagements and aerial combat. All the technical specs point to is that in air to air combat it will only maintain F-16C performance levels, which is 32 year old platform.

The simple fact is, if you want two engines and the most modern systems money can buy, the Raptor is the clear choice. It wouldn't suprise me to see the US approve foreign F-22 sales in the near future. With the way things are going now for the US economy, it wouldn't hurt to bring in virgin money into their system. I see no reason why the US won't sell the F-22 to Japan and Australia for example. The more are built, the lower the costs of the total program will be and a greater chance that we might see a small fleet up here. This is probably all just a pipe dream anyways.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: thunderchild on October 30, 2008, 11:02:11
yea the price would come down. I've read in Jane's that if 100 more raptors could be sold that the flyaway price should be about $99 million US per aircraft. But from what I've read here and on other sites there is some concern that the f-22 is very limited in its ground attack capabilities. If this is true then even if the f-22 kicks butt  in the air( and there is no argument about this) we will still need a second aircraft dedicated to ground support. or am I way out in right Field.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on October 30, 2008, 16:26:02
yea the price would come down. I've read in Jane's that if 100 more raptors could be sold that the flyaway price should be about $99 million US per aircraft. But from what I've read here and on other sites there is some concern that the f-22 is very limited in its ground attack capabilities. If this is true then even if the f-22 kicks butt  in the air( and there is no argument about this) we will still need a second aircraft dedicated to ground support. or am I way out in right Field.

I don't see a need for a ground attack fighter when the UAV's can do the job just as well if not better for alot less money.

I also would like to know in what performance measure, other than stealth, would the F-35 outperform an F-16E with an AESA radar?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on October 31, 2008, 03:09:06
I don't see a need for a ground attack fighter when the UAV's can do the job just as well if not better for alot less money.

I do not know where you got that idea, but it is incorrect.

They have their strengths, but also their shortcomings.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on October 31, 2008, 03:12:22
I can't speak for every helo pilot, but given the complexity of a helicopter, adding an even more complex gearbox to the mix is not what I wanted and I know a lot of other helo pilots feel the same way.

I was never happier than when I had one engine.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: thunderchild on November 01, 2008, 19:56:03
A uav/ ucav have their place I'd rather send them in to punch holes into a first class air defence, but they are man made machines how secure are they from hacking?(I have no Idea on this and any information would welcome) Besides how much better than a light fighter in price and capability are they really? I've read from several web sites including the federation of American scientist which place the price of the french neuron at $35 million US per UCAV not including support command and control and developmen costs etc.  UAV/UCAV area is new to me, if I'm wrong in my conclusions I know you'll tell me.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on November 01, 2008, 21:01:49
No UAV to date has any specialized capability for defeating AD systems.

No information on susceptibility to jamming or other interference will be forthcoming.

They have no better capability than a light fighter, only a different capability.

Most are unarmed, and those that can be armed carry light loads, even Reaper. They also operate singly, therefore have no combined effect.

Think of the armed ones as airborne snipers, lurking, observing target areas for extended periods, and firing a well-aimed shot at a high-value target.

Cost?

Sperwer is the most expensive airframe in the whole CF to operate, when all factors are taken into account.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: FoverF on November 03, 2008, 00:51:07
The Super Hornet was designed to do pretty much two things:

1) to be cheap enough to allow the USN to keep 12 supercarriers. 
2) smell like an upgrade of an existing aircraft, in order to fly under the political radar.

It does both of these, and they are at the same time its` greatest strengths and weaknesses.

The SH was the cheapest and least capable airframe the USN could get to barely fill their fast jet needs. It has 'less than stunning' performance, and was forced to be a decidedly 4th generation (4.5 at best), by virtue of trying to pass itself off as just another model of the Hornet.

But we are a country with a decidedly limited budget for big-ticket defence items, so an aircraft that was designed from the outset to be the cheapest practical Hornet replacement is an attractive proposition. And we're a country who's government is liable to turn around and throw our big-ticket defense items out the window at the drop of a hat. Being able to survive a Liberal majority government is a make-or-break capability for any Hornet replacement program, and the Super Hornet has the edge in that department.

It should also be noted that, IMHO, our unique position as America Jr means that there is absolutely no way any European airframe is going to be more economical for us in the long term than an American one.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on November 03, 2008, 02:06:32
It seems to me like we are "stuck" with the JSF.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 03, 2008, 10:01:55
The Super Hornet was designed to do pretty much two things:

1) to be cheap enough to allow the USN to keep 12 supercarriers. 
2) smell like an upgrade of an existing aircraft, in order to fly under the political radar.

It does both of these, and they are at the same time its` greatest strengths and weaknesses.

The SH was the cheapest and least capable airframe the USN could get to barely fill their fast jet needs. It has 'less than stunning' performance, and was forced to be a decidedly 4th generation (4.5 at best), by virtue of trying to pass itself off as just another model of the Hornet.

But we are a country with a decidedly limited budget for big-ticket defence items, so an aircraft that was designed from the outset to be the cheapest practical Hornet replacement is an attractive proposition. And we're a country who's government is liable to turn around and throw our big-ticket defense items out the window at the drop of a hat. Being able to survive a Liberal majority government is a make-or-break capability for any Hornet replacement program, and the Super Hornet has the edge in that department.

It should also be noted that, IMHO, our unique position as America Jr means that there is absolutely no way any European airframe is going to be more economical for us in the long term than an American one.

Is this your opinion or fact? If its actual fact how about some sources to back up your points.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 03, 2008, 10:19:09
It seems to me like we are "stuck" with the JSF.

Why?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 03, 2008, 15:34:26
It seems to me like we are "stuck" with the JSF.

Odd, did we actually out ink to paper to buy this aircraft?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on November 03, 2008, 16:14:10
I'm no expert, but I ahven't seen any big news releases regarding the purchase of a new jet fighter...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 03, 2008, 19:19:31
The only money we put into the program was by Industry Canada, to guarantee that some part of the airplane will be made in Canada.  Otherwise, the CF or DND didn't put a penny into the program.  We do, however, have a Fighter Replacement Team in Ottawa.  They, as opposed to NINJA, explore every possibility, not only the JSF.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on November 03, 2008, 19:26:29
Why?

I don't see anyother viable option really. You can almost countout European products due to our friendliness and political relations with the US, Russian stuff...forget about it.

What do we have left to choose from?

-F-35's
-Superhornets
-F-15 variants
-F-16 variants

Anything else?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Mr.Newf on November 03, 2008, 19:30:27
So what is wrong with having Superhornets?


(The un-educated on the Air Force)
Beaver
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on November 03, 2008, 20:09:32
So what is wrong with having Superhornets?


(The un-educated on the Air Force)
Beaver

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf  (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04900.pdf)

Important part - USN rates the F/A-18E/F as only 50% as effective as the F-35. While it might be a good performer right NOW, it's not necessarily the most capable in the long term. We must move into the future and past the Superhornet, it's an "old" platform, relatively speaking.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 03, 2008, 20:17:29
50% as effective in what aspect.  You can't quantify an aircraft as 50% more effective.  There are too many variables involved...    I could easily say the F-35 is 60% as effective as the Superhornet cost-wise...   It's not an old platform.  Everything is new, and you were the first one to say it... 

Why do we NEED the JSF again?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on November 03, 2008, 20:40:38
Grippen NG
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on November 03, 2008, 20:42:33
In the timeframe we are looking at replacing the CF-188......the replacement aircraft is in the design/ testing stage not in service. Even the super hornet will be older technology when we are ready for a CF-188 replacement.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 03, 2008, 20:49:38
An other argument for going to 2 engines is the combat survivability of the aircraft.  Read about how many F-16's came back after taking an IR seeking SAM up the engine and compare it to how many Hornets made it back to the carrier/base after a similar accident.  PERSONALLY, I'd rather fly on 2 engines.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: thunderchild on November 03, 2008, 20:55:26
We don't have to commit to the F-35 until 2012 right?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on November 04, 2008, 08:03:04
An other argument for going to 2 engines is the combat survivability of the aircraft.  Read about how many F-16's came back after taking an IR seeking SAM up the engine and compare it to how many Hornets made it back to the carrier/base after a similar accident.  PERSONALLY, I'd rather fly on 2 engines.

2 engines vs 1 shouldn't make much of a difference to a proximity fused warhead.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 04, 2008, 09:54:13
drunksubmrnr, the point is that the second engine is shielded from the 1st.  If it kills 1 engine, it may not kill the second one.  If it kills the only engine, you WILL have to punch out.  Contrary to what some people think, just because you get hit doesn't mean your plane blows up....  Again, look up the numbers, I believe they are available (Hornet vs Viper).
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: thunderchild on November 04, 2008, 16:23:39
I'm looking at my atlas and it seems to me that there is a huge amount of space between airfields , I'd rather my son be flying on 2 engines just incase he flames out or who nows what goes wrong. By the time we get a new fighter it will be our kids  who will have to fly it. I'd like to give them as many options as possable.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on November 04, 2008, 18:10:43
As much as I personally don't like it, the F-35 will probably be NATO's next fighter. You can forget about the Superhornet, it's a full generation behind the JSF. The whole two engine vs one engine fighter issue is a moot point. I'm sure there will be a few pilots who won't like transitioning from the hornet to the JSF, but there will be alot who would prefer to fly the latest and greatest toy. A pilot who is afraid of flying on one engine could always transfer to an Aurora or Herc fleet, they have plenty of engines for their safety.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Strike on November 04, 2008, 18:26:11
Ninja,

You know the old saying: Better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, then in the air wishing you were on the ground?

When you are flying a multi-engined aircraft and you lose and engine, the second part rarely happens (unless you're in a Griffon and the DA is absurdly high  ;D ).

As for 1 engine vs 2 being a moot point, I beg to differ.  Ever wonder why NONE of our operational manned aircraft (notice the manned part, so the UAV is out...how are things by the way Loachman?) are single engine?  Read posts from pilots and other aviators who are in the air and you will get your answer.  Sorry, but we all want 2 engines.  However, you're already working on an aircraft with 2 engines if I'm guessing right.  Why don't you talk to the pilots on your end and see what their views are?  I believe there's an old fighter guy up in your HQ who could give you a few opinions on the subject.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on November 04, 2008, 19:24:04
You know the old saying: Better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, then in the air wishing you were on the ground?

When you are flying a multi-engined aircraft and you lose and engine, the second part rarely happens (unless you're in a Griffon and the DA is absurdly high  ;D ).

As for 1 engine vs 2 being a moot point, I beg to differ.  Ever wonder why NONE of our operational manned aircraft (notice the manned part, so the UAV is out...how are things by the way Loachman?) are single engine?  Read posts from pilots and other aviators who are in the air and you will get your answer.  Sorry, but we all want 2 engines.  However, you're already working on an aircraft with 2 engines if I'm guessing right.  Why don't you talk to the pilots on your end and see what their views are?  I believe there's an old fighter guy up in your HQ who could give you a few opinions on the subject.

I don't doubt that PILOTS love two engines and I agree that if I was a pilot I'd prefer two engines myself, for safety sake. But, just because a fighter has two engines doesn't make it anymore reliable. Take the Hornet and Viper for example. The F-16 can also fly with one engine out, the Hornet can barely fly with both of its engines running. Haven spoken to someone who maintained both jets, I can tell you from a maintenance standpoint the Hornet had nothing on the Viper. Very unreliable and maintainability is a nightmare, ask any Hornet handler about the switching valves and hydraulic system migration problems, not to mention the landing gear system that bends and twists on every touchdown. Two engines also means more maintenance hours. The laws of stats can't stop that no matter if it is an F-4 or the Eurofighter. 2 engines ( $$$ ) plus all the associated systems x2 that have to be maintained. Minus the carrier ability, an F-16 can do all combat missions just as good if not better than an F-18, only with less cost - that is why it is the sales king. At the time, Canada chose the Hornet only because of it's twin powerplants, which is understandable for the vastness of this country.

If Canada is to continue the trend of buying two-engined fighters, what options do we have? The superhornet, an aircraft that is already outdated and not really an upgrade of our current C/D models (R2)? Only real option left is the F-22 or a newer variant of the F-15. Both of which are extremely pricey to fly and maintain.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 04, 2008, 19:35:57
The price of an airplane goes much farther than acquisition and maintenance cost.  What happens when you loose an engine in a Viper or F-35 over Northern Canada? You loose the airframe and potentially the pilot (few millions for both, plus all the experience and corporate knowledge of an experienced pilot). What happens if you get your only engine shot by IR SAM or AAA in combat?  You punch out, potentially loose a pilot to the enemy (or worse, he dies) and definately loose an aircraft.  Now do the same thing with a second engine.  The aircraft has the opportunity to come back, get fixed, and be sent again in Combat.  The pilot can too go back to combat.  I don't care how reliable that engine is, an IR SAM or AAA will damage it.   

Small facts for you, during the Gulf War, IR SAMs were responsible for the majority of our losses.  AAAs were responsible for most of the damage inflicted to our aircraft (our as in Allies). 

I,m going to reiterate a question I asked you 10X.  What does the F-35 has more to offer that we need that the Superhornet doesn't offer?

As far as the problems you say the Hornets have, they have been fixed on the Superhornet (planing like failure comes to my mind)

Just a question, how does a viper fly with 0 engine?  It will glide, but that's about it.  Can't go very far.  Just enough to get you out of the concentration of enemy to punch out.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on November 04, 2008, 22:01:04
The price of an airplane goes much farther than acquisition and maintenance cost.  What happens when you loose an engine in a Viper or F-35 over Northern Canada? You loose the airframe and potentially the pilot (few millions for both, plus all the experience and corporate knowledge of an experienced pilot). What happens if you get your only engine shot by IR SAM or AAA in combat?  You punch out, potentially loose a pilot to the enemy (or worse, he dies) and definately loose an aircraft.  Now do the same thing with a second engine.  The aircraft has the opportunity to come back, get fixed, and be sent again in Combat.  The pilot can too go back to combat.  I don't care how reliable that engine is, an IR SAM or AAA will damage it. 

Sometimes there are other things to consider besides the pilot. Yes, without a pilot the aircraft is useless, but without serviceable aircraft, pilots are just an expensive idle asset. Why do you think the F-16 was so popular? It's basically a "throwaway" fighter. It was cheap, reliable and you could buy them in large numbers. Maintenance in wartime and on deployments is not as easy as you make it out to be as-is the somewhat rosy picture you make when an airplane takes damage in battle. Lets assume a direct hit to an engine in flight, the single-engined fighter is forced to "land". The twin-engined can probably fly to the nearest airfield and make an emergency landing. Now, lets also assume a hit to something other than an engine, like a flight control servo or surface or your landing gear. The number of engines you have won't matter if you can't control your aircraft. My point is, the number of engines when under fire isn't always the deciding factor to whether or not you'll make it back home.

Quote
Small facts for you, during the Gulf War, IR SAMs were responsible for the majority of our losses.  AAAs were responsible for most of the damage inflicted to our aircraft (our as in Allies). 

I'm actually curious to what aircraft type were hit and which crashed or returned to fight another day.

Quote
I,m going to reiterate a question I asked you 10X.  What does the F-35 has more to offer that we need that the Superhornet doesn't offer?

Problem is, nothing. The F-35 doesn't offer anything that the SuperHornet can do, but at a cheaper rate. However, like already mentioned several times, the E/F is an old design and will already be obsolete when we receive the first one. The only choice we have that has the latest tech, an okay price and two engines to satisfy the drivers is the Typhoon.

Quote
As far as the problems you say the Hornets have, they have been fixed on the Superhornet (planing like failure comes to my mind)

While the landing gear has been beefed up, other problems still remain. The Avionics, from what I've read, is horrendous for it's serviceability. The Superhornet is nothing more than a bomb truck built for the USN and its carriers. The current C/D hornets are true fighter aircraft, they have excellent A2A maneuverability at low speeds, the Superhornet is weak....scary weak when it comes to speed and would do poorly against SU-2X/3X threats......China for example.

Quote
Just a question, how does a viper fly with 0 engine?  It will glide, but that's about it.  Can't go very far.  Just enough to get you out of the concentration of enemy to punch out.

It doesn't fly, but it glides very well.

I think that Canada's needs are unique. We need a multi-role, possibly twin-engined, fighter that can protect Canadian sovereignty while being able to respond to NATO needs and must last us into 2050-2060. So, what are we left with? The F-35 would be an okay choice that is new, but the newest F-16 can do everything, for cheaper and is readily available. The F-15 variants would be another good choice, but there is no multi-role F-15 and the price is extremely high. The Typhoon an excellent new fighter that can do air to air and air to ground effectively as well as patrol the northern shores without a problem on two-engines. Unfortunately, it's a European product and I don't know how well the Americans might take to a European fighter next door. I'd be willing to bet that if the Eurofighter was designed and built by the Americans, it would be in Canadian hands as a replacement.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: thunderchild on November 04, 2008, 22:47:02
This is what I think, in the arctic our main concern for a fighter would be air defence right? Then buy enough super hornets armed with meteor BVRAAM this will negate the lack of stealth.  Then we would need to buy a fighter that is lighter and less expensive.  We have used this before with the CF-101A Voodoos for NORAD and CF-5A for ground support. If we wanted a stealth strike capability leave it up to the new generation UCAV like the X-47,or Neuron yes they carry lighter bomb loads but if they get shot up during the first wave we build more and we aren't risking a pilot who is worth more than any airframe.  After the shooting starts and the F-35 starts carring bombs, missiles and other stores under the wings what is the point in spending the extra money on stealth?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 04, 2008, 22:54:53
Now, lets also assume a hit to something other than an engine, like a flight control servo or surface or your landing gear. The number of engines you have won't matter if you can't control your aircraft. My point is, the number of engines when under fire isn't always the deciding factor to whether or not you'll make it back home.

IR seaking missile home on... IR.  What's the biggest source of IR?  Probably the engines, right?  Usually detonated by optical or contact fuse, meaning close or into the engine exaust.  
I'm actually curious to what aircraft type were hit and which crashed or returned to fight another day.  Again, look up at the numbers for F-16 vs F-18 shot at during the Gulf War.  You can probably have acces to that at work, if not readily available on the net.


I'm actually curious to what aircraft type were hit and which crashed or returned to fight another day.

Quite a few Hornets took hits and were back on the line a few days later.  Again, look at the same numbers you'll get from the Gulf War.  I don't think they lost any Hornets on the battlefield.  F-16 however...

While the landing gear has been beefed up, other problems still remain. The Avionics, from what I've read, is horrendous for it's serviceability. The Superhornet is nothing more than a bomb truck built for the USN and its carriers.

That's one of the things we want to be able to do, bring bombs, on time, on target.  Any aircraft will have problems, especially avionics.  Remember when the F-22 crashed in flight while crossing the International Date Line?  These bugs can and will be fixed.  

The current C/D hornets are true fighter aircraft, they have excellent A2A maneuverability at low speeds, the Superhornet is weak....scary weak when it comes to speed and would do poorly against SU-2X/3X threats......China for example.

I guess you have a lot of experience with the SuperHornet... How many hours do you have flying it?  That's what I thought... Don't speculate on things you don't know.  AFAIK, the Superhornet shares the same aerodynamic qualities the Hornet has.  That comes from someone that actually has flown the beast (Boeing Chief Test Pilot on the SuperHornet, he's an RMC Grad.).

Aside from the F-22, I don't see anything in our inventory that could fight in the WVR arena with these planes.  BVR however....


It doesn't fly, but it glides very well.

It glides for 2 miles for every 1000'.  You get shot in the mid 30s', you have 60-80 miles.  Not much.  How far was Kuwait from Bagdad?  How far was Aviano from the Balkans?  Yes, you have to eject in hostile territory.

The Typhoon an excellent new fighter that can do air to air and air to ground effectively as well as patrol the northern shores without a problem on two-engines. Unfortunately, it's a European product and I don't know how well the Americans might take to a European fighter next door. I'd be willing to bet that if the Eurofighter was designed and built by the Americans, it would be in Canadian hands as a replacement.

Not only that but it has a horrible range.  Really, I think it was designed for the small european countries.  Not the big Canadian country.

We do NOT have the money for a use and throw fighter.  We need something that will last.  40-60 F-35 just doesn't cut it IMHO. We can't get top of the line, simply because we do not have the money to buy enough.  In the end, I think we will have to sacrifice quality for Quantity.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Mr.Newf on November 04, 2008, 22:59:17
Not only do we have the money, there wouldn't be much of a push to put the money into DND to get these F-35's.

The Superhornet, however, would be much easier to get, and in greater numbers, the the JSF, IMO.


Beav
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on November 05, 2008, 02:27:29
Quite a few Hornets took hits and were back on the line a few days later.  Again, look at the same numbers you'll get from the Gulf War.  I don't think they lost any Hornets on the battlefield.  F-16 however...

According to this: http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html the losses seem quite even for all airframes.

Quote
That's one of the things we want to be able to do, bring bombs, on time, on target.  Any aircraft will have problems, especially avionics.  Remember when the F-22 crashed in flight while crossing the International Date Line?  These bugs can and will be fixed.

That F-22 flight didn't crash, some of the systems did. It returned to Hawaii safely due to errors in the coding.

Quote
I guess you have a lot of experience with the SuperHornet... How many hours do you have flying it?  That's what I thought... Don't speculate on things you don't know.  AFAIK, the Superhornet shares the same aerodynamic qualities the Hornet has.  That comes from someone that actually has flown the beast (Boeing Chief Test Pilot on the SuperHornet, he's an RMC Grad.).

Oh I don't doubt that a Boeing test pilot would talk up the product that he flies. While the Superhornet shares the same qualities, it's heavy frame with a lack of power attributes to its sluggish performance. The Superhornet was never the right replacement for the F-14. Right now, countries like Australia are buying E/F's to fill-in the gap until the JSF or another fighter arrives. So why should be buy something that needs replacement in less than 10 years?

Quote
We do NOT have the money for a use and throw fighter.  We need something that will last.  40-60 F-35 just doesn't cut it IMHO. We can't get top of the line, simply because we do not have the money to buy enough.  In the end, I think we will have to sacrifice quality for Quantity.

JSF and SuperHornet costs are very close, mabye a few million more per flyaway cost for the JSF. However with Canada's involvement in the development, you could see lower costs for the JSF. I would rather have a quality jet with the latest technology, stealth as an example, that will last you three decades instead of an aircraft that was designed to land on carriers.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on November 05, 2008, 02:59:29
As for 1 engine vs 2 being a moot point, I beg to differ.  Ever wonder why NONE of our operational manned aircraft are single engine?.

Because we made a grave mistake in retiring the Kiowa rather than upgrading it to D-model status.

And that's not just nostalgia speaking. They have much gainful employment here, of which I am most envious. Funny, though - they forgot to bring application forms with them.

notice the manned part, so the UAV is out...how are things by the way Loachman?)

$%^#^%#^% Sperwer.

And don't anybody even bother seeking further details, as none will be forthcoming from me until at least March.

There - I rose to your goading, a small concession just for you.

Sorry, but we all want 2 engines.

No, we don't. Give me one less engine and one less combining gearbox any day.

And nine fewer fuel tanks with all of the associated plumbing, and one less hydraulic system, and....

And a helicopter built to military specifications rather than a civilian one painted green.

Back to engines: In a seized wing aircraft, engines are independent systems. More are better. In a helicopter, they're not, and the more engines added, the more complex and failure-prone the additional systems become. When I was at 427 Squadron, we had Kiowas and Twin Hueys. The latter's serviceability rate paled compared to the Kiowa's. During my time there, two Twins experienced combining gearbox problems in IFR (why anybody would want to fly IFR in a helicopter is beyond me anyway) conditions in the US and had to do emergency descents, with both landing in schoolyards. I am a firm believer in simplicity (along with VFR under the cloud).

I have yet to see any credible, scientific report indicating that two engines are better than one in the case of helicopters. If somebody has one, please pass it along. I could use the chuckle.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 05, 2008, 03:31:28
According to this: http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html the losses seem quite even for all airframes.

If you look carefully, you'll see that most the Hornets hit by IR Sams were damaged, not destroyed.  (1 Destroyed, 6 Damaged, 14% Destroyed) More Vipers were destroyed (4 destroyed, 4 damaged, 50% Destroyed).  You see my point yet?

That F-22 flight didn't crash, some of the systems did. It returned to Hawaii safely due to errors in the coding.

That's what I meant.

Oh I don't doubt that a Boeing test pilot would talk up the product that he flies. While the Superhornet shares the same qualities, it's heavy frame with a lack of power attributes to its sluggish performance.

He probably more credible than what you read on wikipedia.  He's flown more than 2 types of airplanes.  The guy has a head on his shoulder and is very objective in his arguments.  He knows how to asses aircraft performance I think...

While the Superhornet shares the same qualities, it's heavy frame with a lack of power attributes to its sluggish performance.

Then why does it have a greater thrust to weight ratio?  To me, it's a BIG factor in aircraft performance, especially with 2 very similar airframes (again, what do I know...  I guess Aircrafr Performance in University was a joke and all my training was useless)  Just for your info, the Thrust to Weight of the SH is 0.93, Afterburner vs generic load weight.  It's 0.90 for the JSF for the same circumstances.  These are the unclass values.

The Superhornet was never the right replacement for the F-14.

They don't have the same role.  Hornet is a multi-role.  F-14 was a fleet protector (later, some converted to bomber).  Can't compare apples to oranges.

So why should be buy something that needs replacement in less than 10 years?

Why would we need a replacement if it does the job?

JSF and SuperHornet costs are very close, mabye a few million more per flyaway cost for the JSF.

Hmmmm.  Let's see...  52M US$ for the Super Hornet, 85M US$ for the JSF.  I don't consider a difference of 34% close.  The price of the JSF will only go up from here.  The Hornet is already being built for export and sold.  We know for sure what the price is.

I would rather have a quality jet with the latest technology, stealth as an example, that will last you three decades instead of an aircraft that was designed to land on carriers.

Again, why do we need this?  Is it REALLY stealth?  What if you want to make it go for longer missions, carry more bombs or missiles? You need to add pylons.  The combat persistance of the JSF is far from being good.  We will need to put pylons on.  Guess what happens to your super stealthy jet when you put pylons on?  It's not stealthy anymore.  With the stealthy version, you can carry 2 AIMs and 2 A/G weapons or 4 AIMs.  I believe the standard load during Kosovo was 4 AIMS, 2 bombs and 3 jugs.  So you WILL need to put on some external stores on to make a good fighter.   What else does it have to offer more than the Superhornet?  To me, it'll be like the attempt to create a Joint aircraft out of the F-111.  It failed miserably...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 05, 2008, 07:17:25
Thanks, SupersonicMax for excellent primer series on high performance aircraft. This is one old soldier (can one put more emphasis on old?) who is learning and, in the process, putting aside some of my preconceived ideas.

My hat's off to all the serving pilots/aircrew here (even though some wish they were Army  ;) ) who are keeping our discussions in the real world - even, maybe especially, when they argue amongst themselves.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on November 05, 2008, 08:35:28
drunksubmrnr, the point is that the second engine is shielded from the 1st.  If it kills 1 engine, it may not kill the second one.  If it kills the only engine, you WILL have to punch out.  Contrary to what some people think, just because you get hit doesn't mean your plane blows up....  Again, look up the numbers, I believe they are available (Hornet vs Viper).

I don't know much about aircraft, but I've worked with SAM's and AAA a fair bit. Losing one F-18 engine and not the other to either is not a likely scenario.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 05, 2008, 10:25:17
I don't know much about aircraft, but I've worked with SAM's and AAA a fair bit. Losing one F-18 engine and not the other to either is not a likely scenario.

May you explain why?  The numbers in the linked documents don't lie.  Many Hornets came back after IR SAM hits. Not many F-16. (I'm focusing on IR SAMs for 2 reasons, one being it was the deadliest during the Gulf War and the second being that's the only one that will home on IR (heat)).  To me, it means the Vipers suferred damages that prevented them from coming back home.  Likely cause?  The SAM took the engine out.  Hornets were able to come back home generally.  Cause?  They came back on 1 engine.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Strike on November 05, 2008, 12:23:21
The F-16 can also fly with one engine out, the Hornet can barely fly with both of its engines running.

I beg to differ, and after your remark above, I am now having a hard time taking anything you say at face value.  If an F-16 loses it's engine, it is no longer flying, it is gliding.

Ninja, I would seriously suggest that you go and find an ex-fighter pilot in your unit and see what he has to say in all this.  I think a good face to face with someone in the know as opposed to the anonimity the internet provides might help you gain a better understanding of the whole subject.

The whole "Without maintainers, there are no pilots" diatribe only shows your immaturity.  I have yet to see someone respond with the opposite, perhaps because we are all a little too mature to go down the Air/Aviation 'I'm better than you' equivalent.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: thunderchild on November 05, 2008, 13:16:21
From what I've been reading here it is coming down to the F-35 or the Supper Hornet block 2 (or 3 if it ever gets built). The next question is how many do we need of each or is a combination of the two diffrent capabilities the way to go? ideas.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Strike on November 05, 2008, 13:30:23
From what I've been reading here it is coming down to the F-35 or the Supper Hornet block 2 (or 3 if it ever gets built). The next question is how many do we need of each or is a combination of the two diffrent capabilities the way to go? ideas.

A combination of 2 aircraft is always the nicer choice, but not necessarily better when you factor in issues such things as manning and training.  We are going through these issues in the Tac Hel world right now with the Griffon and Chinook.  It's a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul, all based on the current operational tempo, which ends up biting us in the behind at a later date (or right away in the TH world).

Having 2 different aircraft certainly opens up the possibilities in the missions we are able to carry out.  Unfortunately we haven't had a huge increase in numbers on the aircrew and tech side which means that it would be a long time before such a system could be fully functional and operational with multiple aircraft types.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on November 05, 2008, 13:38:12
And then there are the Attack and Recce requirements which need to be addressed.

We could crew and maintain two D-model Kiowas for every Griffon, and perform a useful role in this and other theatres.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on November 05, 2008, 13:57:38
May you explain why?  The numbers in the linked documents don't lie.  Many Hornets came back after IR SAM hits. Not many F-16. (I'm focusing on IR SAMs for 2 reasons, one being it was the deadliest during the Gulf War and the second being that's the only one that will home on IR (heat)).  To me, it means the Vipers suferred damages that prevented them from coming back home.  Likely cause?  The SAM took the engine out.  Hornets were able to come back home generally.  Cause?  They came back on 1 engine.

If you look at the page at http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html, the multi-engine types seem to take a lot more losses than single-engine types. Even if you look at F-18 vs F-16 losses. Is there another page with different stats?

Most of the SAM's out there have warheads large enough and sophisticated enough that they'll take out both engines on a fighter-sized aircraft, since the engines are so close together. There's not much solid in a turbine engine...they definitely don't have enough shielding to stop fragmentation damage to both, even if the warhead detonated in a favourable position.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Strike on November 05, 2008, 14:01:25
If you look at the page at http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html, the multi-engine types seem to take a lot more losses than single-engine types. Even if you look at F-18 vs F-16 losses. Is there another page with different stats?

What that shows is a list.  If it were to compare the number of sorties each aricraft type made to the amount of damage sustained THEN you would get a statistic.  All I see on that link is a list of numbers.  Without the number of sorties of each aircraft, it's pretty useless in determining which aircraft is stronger/better/whatever.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on November 05, 2008, 14:37:41
What that shows is a list.  If it were to compare the number of sorties each aricraft type made to the amount of damage sustained THEN you would get a statistic.  All I see on that link is a list of numbers.  Without the number of sorties of each aircraft, it's pretty useless in determining which aircraft is stronger/better/whatever.

I agree. All that page shows is what caused the loss of or damage to the aircraft involved. It would need a lot more data for a thorough analysis, and even then there'd be a lot of bias/guesswork.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 05, 2008, 16:38:26
If you look at the page at http://128.121.102.226/aaloss.html, the multi-engine types seem to take a lot more losses than single-engine types. Even if you look at F-18 vs F-16 losses. Is there another page with different stats?

Most of the SAM's out there have warheads large enough and sophisticated enough that they'll take out both engines on a fighter-sized aircraft, since the engines are so close together. There's not much solid in a turbine engine...they definitely don't have enough shielding to stop fragmentation damage to both, even if the warhead detonated in a favourable position.

We're talking about IR Sams.  They are usually small, innexpensive missiles.  They are usually short range missiles, small warhead.  Think SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, Stigner.  All MANPADS.  There are some vehicle mounted IR Sams (Chapparal, SA-9, SA-13) but even these are fairly small (Chapparal is a ground-based Aim-9).  So, it is very possible that one of the engine will survive (you'll agree that there are more odds of one engine surviving on a 2 engines aircraft than on a 1 engine aircraft...).  Stories of that happenning (more than once) are actually in military litterature.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on November 05, 2008, 19:36:39
We're talking about IR Sams.  They are usually small, innexpensive missiles.  They are usually short range missiles, small warhead.  Think SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, Stigner.  All MANPADS.  There are some vehicle mounted IR Sams (Chapparal, SA-9, SA-13) but even these are fairly small (Chapparal is a ground-based Aim-9).  So, it is very possible that one of the engine will survive (you'll agree that there are more odds of one engine surviving on a 2 engines aircraft than on a 1 engine aircraft...).  Stories of that happenning (more than once) are actually in military litterature.

Technically, there are SM-2 IR versions out there and they're a lot bigger than a MANPADS.

And no, I wouldn't say it's "very possible" that a second engine will survive a close detonation of even a MANPADS warhead. That's a lot of chunks of prefragged steel flying into an engine spinning really quickly and with tight tolerances. "Remotely possible" yes. Maybe even "somewhat possible" for a little while at least. Not "very possible".
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on November 05, 2008, 21:50:20
If you look carefully, you'll see that most the Hornets hit by IR Sams were damaged, not destroyed.  (1 Destroyed, 6 Damaged, 14% Destroyed) More Vipers were destroyed (4 destroyed, 4 damaged, 50% Destroyed).  You see my point yet?

Not really. All it shows is what aircraft were hit and which of those were either damaged (didn't say whether or not damaged beyond repair or how severely damaged) or destroyed. Also it doesn't list how many missions each type flew.

He probably more credible than what you read on wikipedia.  He's flown more than 2 types of airplanes.  The guy has a head on his shoulder and is very objective in his arguments.  He knows how to asses aircraft performance I think...

While the SH might be a good performer on it's own, compared to other aircraft of it's generation, it's a pig. Thrust to Weight might help you accelerate and climb faster, but overall, the current hornet is a little more agile. It all depends on what type of performace you are talking about.

They don't have the same role.  Hornet is a multi-role.  F-14 was a fleet protector (later, some converted to bomber).  Can't compare apples to oranges.

Exactly why alot of people don't like the SuperHornet, it was never a real replacement for the F-14.

Hmmmm.  Let's see...  52M US$ for the Super Hornet, 85M US$ for the JSF.  I don't consider a difference of 34% close.  The price of the JSF will only go up from here.  The Hornet is already being built for export and sold.  We know for sure what the price is.

Overall, the JSF will be alot cheaper in the long run because it already has current technology and is alot more maintenance friendly, IE F-16 friendly. Having only one engine decreases the cost of flight per hour dramatically.

Again, why do we need this?  Is it REALLY stealth?  What if you want to make it go for longer missions, carry more bombs or missiles? You need to add pylons.  The combat persistance of the JSF is far from being good.  We will need to put pylons on.  Guess what happens to your super stealthy jet when you put pylons on?  It's not stealthy anymore.  With the stealthy version, you can carry 2 AIMs and 2 A/G weapons or 4 AIMs.  I believe the standard load during Kosovo was 4 AIMS, 2 bombs and 3 jugs.  So you WILL need to put on some external stores on to make a good fighter.   What else does it have to offer more than the Superhornet?  To me, it'll be like the attempt to create a Joint aircraft out of the F-111.  It failed miserably...

Stealth is something that gives you an upperhand in an aerial battle. It's what makes the Raptor such a dominate force in the sky, without it, it's just a fancy uber expensive F-15 with great radar. The JSF can carry enough internal stores and fuel for it's missions, and there is also AAR which always extends range. No one yet knows for certain the capability of the JSF anyways so it's pointless to speculate. What is certain though is the Superhornet and it's outdated airframe, old, blotchy avionics and weapons systems and horrible reputation in the fighter community. There is a reason why only the USN operates them and why Australia is only buying them to fill the hole for a real replacement - it's a polished C/D model hornet turd. Only reason why some people on this forum like it is because it has two engines. I'm just glad that the people who make the real decisions don't consider only that one "advantage".

Quote from: Strike
Ninja, I would seriously suggest that you go and find an ex-fighter pilot in your unit and see what he has to say in all this.  I think a good face to face with someone in the know as opposed to the anonimity the internet provides might help you gain a better understanding of the whole subject.

Pilots in our unit don't know anymore than anyone else does on what our replacement will be.


Quote from: Strike
The whole "Without maintainers, there are no pilots" diatribe only shows your immaturity.  I have yet to see someone respond with the opposite, perhaps because we are all a little too mature to go down the Air/Aviation 'I'm better than you' equivalent.

If you see it that way then fine. Simple fact is, without maintainers, there are no serviceable aircraft. If your SuperHornet with a horrible serv rate is always on the ground, it kinda makes the pilot unemployed.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on November 05, 2008, 22:22:27
A little levity for you guys.  ;D

Unless you have $8 billion in your pocket and can sign the cheque, a lot of this is academic anyway:
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 05, 2008, 22:59:34
Not really. All it shows is what aircraft were hit and which of those were either damaged (didn't say whether or not damaged beyond repair or how severely damaged) or destroyed. Also it doesn't list how many missions each type flew.

At least the pilot is back to base (and can fly the very next day) and the aircraft can be used for spare parts at worst.  But in books I've read about the Gulf War, they were back on the line in 1 week.  An ejected pilot, and captured pilot is a big liability for an army/air force/navy

While the SH might be a good performer on it's own, compared to other aircraft of it's generation, it's a pig. Thrust to Weight might help you accelerate and climb faster, but overall, the current hornet is a little more agile. It all depends on what type of performace you are talking about.

Thrust to weight can be related to acceleration, sustained Gs (Turn rate & turn radius, consequently) which are the things that are important in a fight..  Be able to turn faster than your opponent, inside its turn circle and be able to bug efficiently.  Don't try to teach me aerodynamics, it is my speciality.  I've been into that for about 8 years now and I do have formal education (both university and military) on it. 

How can you say the Super Hornet is less agile that our curernt version?  Fact or speculation?

Exactly why alot of people don't like the SuperHornet, it was never a real replacement for the F-14.

In what context would the Hornet not be able to do what the F-14's were initially meant to do? 

Overall, the JSF will be alot cheaper in the long run because it already has current technology and is alot more maintenance friendly, IE F-16 friendly. Having only one engine decreases the cost of flight per hour dramatically.

Not if you factor losses.  You will loose more because of its only engine.  Again, check the flight safety system, you'll see many Hornets had engines problems.  To be fair, divide the number of occurence by 2 (twice as many chance of having engine problems with 2 engines).  If they had 1 engine, they would have lost that many airplanes.  That can become fairly expensive at 36M$ a piece, not to count the pilot.  Have you worked on the F-35?  How can you tell it is maintenance friendly?  How can you tell the Super Hornet isn't maintenance friendly?  I thought it was a totally different airplane on the maintainers' perspective (so you say).

The technology on the Super Hornet is probably as recent as on the JSF.  Can you name a few things that aren't up to par with the JSF, technology wise?

Stealth is something that gives you an upperhand in an aerial battle. It's what makes the Raptor such a dominate force in the sky, without it, it's just a fancy uber expensive F-15 with great radar. The JSF can carry enough internal stores and fuel for it's missions, and there is also AAR which always extends range. No one yet knows for certain the capability of the JSF anyways so it's pointless to speculate. What is certain though is the Superhornet and it's outdated airframe, old, blotchy avionics and weapons systems and horrible reputation in the fighter community. There is a reason why only the USN operates them and why Australia is only buying them to fill the hole for a real replacement - it's a polished C/D model hornet turd. Only reason why some people on this forum like it is because it has two engines. I'm just glad that the people who make the real decisions don't consider only that one "advantage".

The JSF isn't a Raptor.  2 different mission.  Air Superiority vs Multi Role.  In an Air Superiority role, sure I can buy that stealth is good.  However, on a multi role, that you WILL need to put bombs on pylons, it's not something that is that important anymore.  Again, did you read my post on the typical loads of the Hornets in Kosovo?  AAR doesn't usually go past the FLOT.  If you don't have the range (don't forget, you're fully loaded at that point, you burn more gas).  Range is an issue.  They will need jugs.

Outdated airframe?  How so? 

Horrible avionics?  What do you know about avionics and flying with it?  AFAIK, their radars are very similar, which is a very big piece of a fighter's avionics suite. 

Weapon systems?  It uses the same the JSF will use.  AMRAMS, AIM 9 (possibly X with Off-Boresight and Helmet Mouted Sight), standard Mk 82 for old fashion drops, Laser guided, GPS guided, whatever you want.  What can the JSF bring other than what the Super HOrnet (or even our Hornet) can bring?

It's not ONLY because it has 2 engines. It IS cheaper to buy (can buy more), you will loose less, it's more combat persistent, it's somethign we are already familiar with and overall, I think think the extra kit on the F-35 is worth the price difference at all.  (you failed to tell me WHAT the JSF can bring more than the SH other than being stealthy...)

Anyways, I'm a bit fed up with arguing with you over that.  You seem to pull out facts out of you *** (sorry for the expression) and have no experience or source to back it up. 

Technically, there are SM-2 IR versions out there and they're a lot bigger than a MANPADS.

And no, I wouldn't say it's "very possible" that a second engine will survive a close detonation of even a MANPADS warhead. That's a lot of chunks of prefragged steel flying into an engine spinning really quickly and with tight tolerances. "Remotely possible" yes. Maybe even "somewhat possible" for a little while at least. Not "very possible".

SA-2 Guideline?  IR?  Never, ever heard of that.  And even if it did exists, you still need a radar for initial guidance.  It MAY use IR for final guidance, but I've never heard of it. 

Missiles rarely have direct hits.  There's a reason it's call a missile and there is a reason there's not only a contact fuse on it.  I think it is very possible that 1 engine survives.  You'll rarely have a hit directly from behind.  Usually on the beam sector if it actually explodes near the aircraft.  There is a shield in between the engines for that specific reason (and it is very rigid).   On a dumb, non-manoevring target, you'll probably be able to kill both engines.  However, aircrews are trained to react to treats like that. Read the military litterature a little. You will read stories of that happenning.  I'll give you some titles as soon as I have a minute to dig the books out. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on November 06, 2008, 01:48:44
Thrust to weight can be related to acceleration, sustained Gs (Turn rate & turn radius, consequently) which are the things that are important in a fight..  Be able to turn faster than your opponent, inside its turn circle and be able to bug efficiently.  Don't try to teach me aerodynamics, it is my speciality.  I've been into that for about 8 years now and I do have formal education (both university and military) on it. 

How can you say the Super Hornet is less agile that our curernt version?  Fact or speculation?

From someone who has flown a Superhornet:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/flying-into-trouble/2006/12/29/1166895477918.html

From RAAF, so you can believe it if you wish.

Quote
In what context would the Hornet not be able to do what the F-14's were initially meant to do? 

The F-14 was the USN's primary air superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor and tac reccy platform. The SH is non of these things. Like you said,  it's a multi-role fighter and this does nothing for what the USN needs.

Quote
The technology on the Super Hornet is probably as recent as on the JSF.  Can you name a few things that aren't up to par with the JSF, technology wise?

http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_technology.htm
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003846.html
http://www.indiadefence.com/F35JSF.htm
From above:"For IN the “prize catch” (over the Superhornet) will be the F-35’s sensors and the heart of it is the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, based on the AN/APG-77 AESA set developed for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The AESA set consists of an array of Transmitter-Receiver (T/R) modules linked by high-speed processors. Different T/R modules in the array can be allocated to different tasks providing wide range of functions, thus acting as a multimode radar, active jamming system, passive electronic defense system, and communications system. The system generates signals over a wide range of frequencies and pulse patterns in an unpredictable fashion to ensure Low Probability of Intercept (LPI), successfully “fooling“ enemy Radar Warning Receivers (RWR). "


(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg174.imageshack.us%2Fimg174%2F7995%2Ff18vsf35et6.jpg&hash=64667fa2d68ff564cbacf3e9156350a8)

The pictures shows (to scale) the F-35C and F-18E frontal profiles. Its amazing that there is no growth in sectional area considering that the F-35C swallows two 2500 pound and two 350 pound weapon envelopes, holds 36.6% (2,441 kg) more fuel, weighs pretty much the same and had all kind of stealth and STOVL considerations. Going single engine is one of the major factors that made this package possible. With two smaller engines, you have a wider powerplant package. It also makes putting the weapon bays to each side of the engine and immediately behind the intakes impossible to do. When you can have a single engine which make essentially the same thrust (43,000 vs 2 x22,000 lbs), using the single engine configuration permits tighter packaging, greater mass efficiency and (usually) better efficiency. In combat, having one or two engines doesn't make a difference, once you lose one, you are done either way.

Quote
The JSF isn't a Raptor.  2 different mission.  Air Superiority vs Multi Role.  In an Air Superiority role, sure I can buy that stealth is good.  However, on a multi role, that you WILL need to put bombs on pylons, it's not something that is that important anymore.  Again, did you read my post on the typical loads of the Hornets in Kosovo?  AAR doesn't usually go past the FLOT.  If you don't have the range (don't forget, you're fully loaded at that point, you burn more gas).  Range is an issue.  They will need jugs.

Obviously the JSF isn't a Raptor, but Stealth always has it's advantages regardless of mission. Again, depending on mission requirements, you can either choose to send the aircraft with externals or not. I have seen many instances where the Raptor was sent in with External tanks to intercept Bears, why, because Stealth in that case was not needed. When it is, it will be utilized.

Quote
What can the JSF bring other than what the Super HOrnet (or even our Hornet) can bring?

I had a good laugh at that one. The fact that you are comparing a 2nd/3rd gen fighter to a 5th gen is nothing short of hilarity.

Quote
It's not ONLY because it has 2 engines. It IS cheaper to buy (can buy more), you will loose less, it's more combat persistent, it's somethign we are already familiar with and overall, I think think the extra kit on the F-35 is worth the price difference at all.  (you failed to tell me WHAT the JSF can bring more than the SH other than being stealthy...)

Anyways, I'm a bit fed up with arguing with you over that.  You seem to pull out facts out of you *** (sorry for the expression) and have no experience or source to back it up. 

Here is an article from Avweekly:

Quote
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will “redefine the concept of multirole strike” aircraft, Lockheed Martin officials say, but they offer few details to flesh out that claim.

Still, while the future concept of operations, electronic attack (EA) capability and derivative options remain undefined, at least publicly, some capabilities can be picked out of their purposely vague descriptions.

Starting from the notion that new hardware is the least likely addition to the aircraft and that it has an open architecture for avionics, look for the big multirole capability additions to involve electronic attack.

Because of the ability to penetrate while using low-probability-of-intercept radar and passive sensors, the JSF will not operate in proximity to current, so-called fourth-generation aircraft. It will instead roam well-defended enemy airspace while feeding precision targeting data to nonstealthy aircraft with standoff-range weapons.

Tailored for EA

The F-35 aircraft is being designed to deliver electronic attack (jamming, spoofing and pulses of energy) with the same ease that it can deliver explosive weapons. Moreover, Lockheed officials say the F-35 – first of all a combat aircraft – will have full 360-degree awareness of what is going on around it.

That presents an interesting dilemma for EA versus kinetic weaponry. The new AIM-9X air-to-air missile can perform high off-boresight shots without turning the aircraft’s nose toward the target. However, delivering electronic effects require specialized antennae pointed toward the target. As far as is known, JSF has only its advanced active, electronically-scanned array (AESA) radar antenna in the nose to pump out its electronic firepower. It would then have the weakness of any AESA array in that it is flat with a field of view of less than 180 degrees, perhaps an effective field of regard for effective attack of 60-90 degrees.

Some radar specialists and Air Force planners already say they anticipate flying the F-35s in line, with the first aircraft being passive and the second emitting and passing target information to the first so that it can remain undetected. Therefore, it appears that without an add-on antenna, the JSF’s EA capability will be limited to the forward quarter.

However, within that field the electronic effects generator can be routed through the AESA radar, which allows the F-35 to invade, blind or fool enemy sensors and radars at ranges of up to hundreds of miles.

Sensors

Lockheed officials do admit that the F-35’s sensor capabilities include advanced electronic surveillance allowing development of an instantaneous electronic order of battle – what’s emitting and from where.

Along with EA, the JSF will take on the mission of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. So instead of depending on a few specialized high-demand aircraft like Rivet Joint (for signals intelligence), Cobra Ball (measurement and signature intelligence) or Compass Call (EA) that can’t venture into enemy airspace, a fleet of F-35s will be able to conduct those missions deep into enemy territory to take advantage of physics (by being nearer the targets) while deepening the areas of surveillance.

They won’t say if information warfare is part of the package. Info warfare is generally the bailiwick of Commando Solo and Compass Call (including network penetration and attack), but with software upgrades radar specialists expect the capability to appear soon.

It seems to me that the F-35's entire concept is to fight smart rather than to fight rough, taking advantage of emerging technologies in some ways far in advance of what was available to the Raptor's designers back in the late 1980s and early 90s. When the potential of F-35's future systems integration is realized, if successful, the platform will stand to be a significant 'game-changer' beyond most current comprehension. Now, I am no hardlined supporter of the F-35, but to think that a barely 4.5 gen fighter in the Superhornet is a better aircraft is ludicrious. In the LONG term, a Superhornet fleet is NOT the right choice for Canada. A JSF purchase would open us up to new technology innovations that the SH could only dream to have in a mabye Block 5 configuration and in the end it's just a quick re-design of our current Hornets.

Now, to me it seems like your only reason to have the SH is it's two-engines, which brings added operating costs, two engines always does, this dates back to WWII. So the whole SH vs JSF is cheaper arguement is void. You WILL spend more maintaining an old aircraft in the SH, why do you think that our Hornets are not in Afganistan? The costs would be crazy. Are you AFRAID to fly on one engine or are you just ignorant to the fact that the JSF is an overall better aircraft than the SuperHornet? $4billion worth of JSF's are alot more COST effective than $4billion worth of SH's in the LONG term.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 06, 2008, 03:50:43
From someone who has flown a Superhornet:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/flying-into-trouble/2006/12/29/1166895477918.html

From RAAF, so you can believe it if you wish.


Yup. Australia isn't Canada.  DIfferent needs.  They don't have the United States just below and they are on a (relatively) small island, surrounded by potential threats, not on a vast land with Russians poking their nose up North once in a while.  What maybe a good fighter for one country doesn'T mean it will be a good one for an other.  The guys isn't a pilot, but a defence analyst. Flying in it once doesn't give you credibility as to analysing the capacity of the airplane.

The F-14 was the USN's primary air superiority fighter, fleet defense interceptor and tac reccy platform. The SH is non of these things. Like you said,  it's a multi-role fighter and this does nothing for what the USN needs.

The F-18E/F can intercept, can reccee and can defend the fleet.  It can also jam, bomb, escort, FAC, refuel and it can do more than one role in one mission.  Multi-role INCLUDES the former Tomcat roles. It actually does the F-14 role, the S-3 Vicking role, the EA-6B role and the Hornet's role.


http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_technology.htm
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003846.html
http://www.indiadefence.com/F35JSF.htm
From above:"For IN the “prize catch” (over the Superhornet) will be the F-35’s sensors and the heart of it is the Northrop Grumman AN/APG-81 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, based on the AN/APG-77 AESA set developed for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor. The AESA set consists of an array of Transmitter-Receiver (T/R) modules linked by high-speed processors. Different T/R modules in the array can be allocated to different tasks providing wide range of functions, thus acting as a multimode radar, active jamming system, passive electronic defense system, and communications system. The system generates signals over a wide range of frequencies and pulse patterns in an unpredictable fashion to ensure Low Probability of Intercept (LPI), successfully “fooling“ enemy Radar Warning Receivers (RWR). "

Take a look at the APG-79 (the current Super HOrnet radar).  It too is an AESA-type radar.  So the radar have similar capabilities...


The pictures shows (to scale) the F-35C and F-18E frontal profiles. Its amazing that there is no growth in sectional area considering that the F-35C swallows two 2500 pound and two 350 pound weapon envelopes, holds 36.6% (2,441 kg) more fuel, weighs pretty much the same and had all kind of stealth and STOVL considerations. Going single engine is one of the major factors that made this package possible. With two smaller engines, you have a wider powerplant package. It also makes putting the weapon bays to each side of the engine and immediately behind the intakes impossible to do. When you can have a single engine which make essentially the same thrust (43,000 vs 2 x22,000 lbs), using the single engine configuration permits tighter packaging, greater mass efficiency and (usually) better efficiency. In combat, having one or two engines doesn't make a difference, once you lose one, you are done either way.

It's actually 20% (vice 36%) more fuel but....  Is it worth getting a single engine aircraft for these reasons (mostly Stealth, since we're not getting STOVL) when in most of our mission profile, you'll need to put pylons anyways for gas and extra ammo?  If we won't have stealth anyways, why bother with internal weapons?  For OUR COUNTRY I don't think it's worth it. We have a large area to defend at home and we don' thave bases every 200 nm.  Engines will quit, no matter what you say and think.  Ask any pilot, most probably have stories about having to shut down an engine.  As for having 1 vs 2 engines in combat.  Yup, you're done no matter what.  You probably won't complete the mission.  However with 1 engine you CAN'T COME BACK.  YOU HAVE TO EJECT, POSSIBLY IN ENNEMY TERRITORY.  You loose and aircraft and an aircrew.  It's not good for the pilot or the organization. With a second engine, it will bring you home if it works and it can be fixed.  The pilot can be up fighting again the next day.


I had a good laugh at that one. The fact that you are comparing a 2nd/3rd gen fighter to a 5th gen is nothing short of hilarity.

I'm sorry, the F-35 doesn't bring any weapons that the Superhornet can't carry, or even our Hornet can (will) carry.  BTW, Hornet is a 4th generation fighter.  If that' so hilarious, what will it bring more that the SH or the Hornet for that matter?

It seems to me that the F-35's entire concept is to fight smart rather than to fight rough, taking advantage of emerging technologies in some ways far in advance of what was available to the Raptor's designers back in the late 1980s and early 90s. When the potential of F-35's future systems integration is realized, if successful, the platform will stand to be a significant 'game-changer' beyond most current comprehension. Now, I am no hardlined supporter of the F-35, but to think that a barely 4.5 gen fighter in the Superhornet is a better aircraft is ludicrious. In the LONG term, a Superhornet fleet is NOT the right choice for Canada.

Many projects claimed to be THE answer to the next fighter aircraft and failed miserably.  IMHO,  you haven't proven that the F-35 will have superior technology that will justify a 30 some off US$ extra.  I'm not saying the SH is a BETTER aircraft in general, but I think it's a MORE SUITABLE aircraft for our needs here in Canada.  The advantages the JSF bring compared to the Hornet are minimal at most and I do not think they justify the price tag.  And just like you said  IF SUCCESFUL, it will be a good fighter.   Otherwise, it will just be an other expensive piece of kit that doesn't really do anything better than any other 4.5th generation aircraft.

A JSF purchase would open us up to new technology innovations that the SH could only dream to have in a mabye Block 5 configuration and in the end it's just a quick re-design of our current Hornets.

I thought you said it's a completely different airplane than the current Hornet?  What are these technology innovations you are talking about? 




Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: cobbler on November 06, 2008, 06:12:55
From someone who has flown a Superhornet:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/flying-into-trouble/2006/12/29/1166895477918.html

From RAAF, so you can believe it if you wish.


Oh Hell NO!

That is from a man who has flown IN a Super Hornet.
I'd be surprised if he had ever actually flown so much as an ultralight or a cessna.

Carlo Kopp, aka the sorry excuse for a human who wrote that opinion piece of garbage, is a self-proclaimed defence analyst, in reality, and qualification he is a mobile (cell) phone engineer. Who owns a military aircraft interest group.

It is certainly not "from the RAAF", as he is despised throughough RAAF circles for spouting pure uninformed, fantasy garbage to the media every couple of weeks.

He has never spent a day in uniform, which wouldn't even be an issue if had even the slightest amount of credibility. Yet he doesn't even have the lowest of security clearances, somehow it doesnt stop him from thinking he knows everything.

The man is a germ of a human being. You dirty these forums by linking to him.

Hopefully that covers that.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on November 06, 2008, 08:46:12
the S-3 Vicking role,

Only one of them. I have yet to see a SH carry out ASW.



Quote
the EA-6B role and the Hornet's role.


To be fair, only one version of the SH will fill the roles of the Prowler.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 06, 2008, 09:54:22
CDN Aviator, yup, that's what I meant for both your statements.  The S-3 didn't do much ASW post-1990. Its misson shifted to fleet AAR and Bombing then. 

As for the EA-6B, the F-18G Growler does that job now. Still the same airframe with a different sensor package onboard.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on November 06, 2008, 12:42:17
SA-2 Guideline?  IR?  Never, ever heard of that.  And even if it did exists, you still need a radar for initial guidance.  It MAY use IR for final guidance, but I've never heard of it.

SM-2. Some versions have the seeker package from the Stinger for TIRH if TSARH is jammed.  The SA-2 has optical backup, not IR.

Missiles rarely have direct hits.  There's a reason it's call a missile and there is a reason there's not only a contact fuse on it.  I think it is very possible that 1 engine survives.  You'll rarely have a hit directly from behind.  Usually on the beam sector if it actually explodes near the aircraft.  There is a shield in between the engines for that specific reason (and it is very rigid).   On a dumb, non-manoevring target, you'll probably be able to kill both engines.  However, aircrews are trained to react to treats like that. Read the military litterature a little. You will read stories of that happenning.  I'll give you some titles as soon as I have a minute to dig the books out. 

Err...the reason it's called a missile has nothing to do with missing.

The proximity fuse on the missile ensures the warhead detonates at the optimal position to down the aircraft. That may or may not mean a contact hit, depending on the type of warhead.

An IR system will generally detonate right behind the aircraft, because IR has issues with generating lead angles. It's an inefficient homing method that usually leads to the weapon approaching the aircraft from behind, even if it's fired from the beam.  That's going to spray a cone of fragments out in front of the missile, and through the target. The shielding is not going to stop that for the simple reason that it's in the wrong place. It's also meant to keep engine parts from flying out, not to keep missile fragments from flying through the engine. Even an A-10 has trouble with missile fragments, and it's got a lot of armour.

Maneuvering a modern fighter will do a lot to ensure that it isn't hit by a missile, but it won't do much to stop both engines from being taken out by the same missile if it does hit. If the engines are right together, there isn't much that can be done at all.

BTW, huge difference in capabilities between the APG-79 and APG-81. They're both AESA on the front end but the back end signal processing is a generation apart. Also, APG-79 isn't LPI.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: DevoBab on November 06, 2008, 15:34:50
It's been mentioned in passing as a possibility before (earlier by me as a mixed force with Super Hornets), but I haven't seen any concrete, defining reasons for the Gripen NG to not be in the running as the next sole fighter purchase. The big minus I can see is the one engine, but we're looking at the JSF as a major possibility and it only has one engine also (and the debate over the importance of two engine continues to rage on).
The older Gripens had a small range, but if what I read is true, the NG has a range of over 4,000km. I haven't found another article or source to confirm that, but if that is the case, that is a better range than all the other aircraft that are being talked about. It is also designed to land on public roads, which seems to be a good fit for Canada and its sparse air bases. Coming from Sweden, it's a NATO country which I would think would make integration fairly smooth (correct me if I am wrong, it is certainly possible). And lastly, the Gripen project site claims throughout that it is a lot cheaper to operate and maintain compared to most other aircraft out there. Apparently it will be available in 2012.

I know it is extremely unlikely, but is there any validity to this idea?

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Tango2Bravo on November 06, 2008, 16:03:26
Coming from Sweden, it's a NATO country which I would think would make integration fairly smooth (correct me if I am wrong, it is certainly possible).

I know it is extremely unlikely, but is there any validity to this idea?


At the risk of sounding pedantic, Sweden is not a member of NATO.  That does not mean that their kit would necessarily be any more or less easy to integrate, but I just thought I would point it out.

Cheers
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Colin P on November 06, 2008, 16:18:34
Oh Hell NO!

That is from a man who has flown IN a Super Hornet.
I'd be surprised if he had ever actually flown so much as an ultralight or a cessna.

Carlo Kopp, aka the sorry excuse for a human who wrote that opinion piece of garbage, is a self-proclaimed defence analyst, in reality, and qualification he is a mobile (cell) phone engineer. Who owns a military aircraft interest group.

It is certainly not "from the RAAF", as he is despised throughough RAAF circles for spouting pure uninformed, fantasy garbage to the media every couple of weeks.

He has never spent a day in uniform, which wouldn't even be an issue if had even the slightest amount of credibility. Yet he doesn't even have the lowest of security clearances, somehow it doesnt stop him from thinking he knows everything.

The man is a germ of a human being. You dirty these forums by linking to him.

Hopefully that covers that.



Hmm the "sparky" of the aviation world, does he want to rename any oldish piece of kit after one of his heros?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on November 06, 2008, 17:14:31
That does not mean that their kit would necessarily be any more or less easy to integrate,

As a matter of fact, NATO has already intergrated the JAS 39 in at least one member nation. Simple fact is that SAAB has no problems supplying its aircraft to be compliant with NATO.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on November 06, 2008, 19:08:36

I'm sorry, the F-35 doesn't bring any weapons that the Superhornet can't carry, or even our Hornet can (will) carry.  BTW, Hornet is a 4th generation fighter.  If that' so hilarious, what will it bring more that the SH or the Hornet for that matter?

It's not just the type of weapons that a fighter can carry that determines it's effectiveness. You still have to hit the target.

I just hope you don't think that our C/D Hornets are 4th gen aircraft. Seriously.

Quote
Many projects claimed to be THE answer to the next fighter aircraft and failed miserably.  IMHO,  you haven't proven that the F-35 will have superior technology that will justify a 30 some off US$ extra.  I'm not saying the SH is a BETTER aircraft in general, but I think it's a MORE SUITABLE aircraft for our needs here in Canada.  The advantages the JSF bring compared to the Hornet are minimal at most and I do not think they justify the price tag.  And just like you said  IF SUCCESFUL, it will be a good fighter.   Otherwise, it will just be an other expensive piece of kit that doesn't really do anything better than any other 4.5th generation aircraft.

The only current fighter aircraft that are considered 5th gen are the JSF and Raptor. While a fleet of SH's will be good for Canada NOW, it will not carry us into 2040 and beyond. You have to remember that our country likes to keep things for long periods of time, just look at the current Hornet and Herc's for example. The JSF or any new fighter for that matter, is a far better platform for new technologies.

As far as the Grippen NG, it was mainly an aircraft created by Sweden, for Sweden. While the NG is more exportable and is alot more compatible with NATO than the previous versions, the F-35A is the superior aircraft for ALL missions -- A2A, A2G or simply recon. A few magnitudes less detectable, superior tactically achievable performance, longer range, better sensors, better UI, etc. In purely technical and combat capability terms, the F-35 is vastly superior to the Grippen NG. However, the F-35 is also a lot more expensive, a lot noisier, consumes more fuel, and likely will be more expensive to maintain. But these days a lot of times a fighter aircraft is not bought as a tool of defense. Sometimes they are bought as a job creation program and Canada has already poured millions of dollars in JSF job creation. So only time will tell what will happen.

IIRC, I heard that the US was offering Canada "leftover" C/D model hornets for $1 back in the day, but the government passed on it. They rather chose to upgrade the current models to C/D standard for alot more money. How credible this info is, I don't know, but I somehow don't doubt it considering they chose the Hornets main 3rd line contractor in Mirabel, rather then a cheaper bid from a Winnipeg company. Presumably to keep the Quebecois quiet. I just wish I could find more info on this subject.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 06, 2008, 19:44:06
It's not just the type of weapons that a fighter can carry that determines it's effectiveness. You still have to hit the target.

I believe the Hornet or SH can drop a weapon just as accurately as the JSF.  What makes you think otherwise?

I just hope you don't think that our C/D Hornets are 4th gen aircraft. Seriously.

Hmmm I'm 200% it is a 4th generation JET fighter.

1st gen were MiG 17, Sabre and the likes (1945 to 1955 roughly)  They are the first fighter jets to actually be operationnal.
2nd gen were the Voodoos, Starfighters, MiG 21 and the likes (1955 to 1960 roughly)  They offered improvement on the form of a radar, higher speeds and guided A/A missiles
3rd gen were F-4, Harrier, MiG 23, MiG 25, Su-22 and the likes (1960 to 1970 roughly)  They offered improvement from the previous generation being the first to be considered multi-roles.
4th gen are the F-14 F-15, F-16, F-18, Mirage 2000, MiG 29 (1970 to 1990 roughly)  They came with improved avionics, weapons system and were the first airplane we put enphasis on manoevrability for air combats.
4.5th gen are the Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter, Grippen, Su-33.  They have the same basic characteristics as their pre-decessors, but have improved avionics, limited stealth characteristics.
5th gen are the Raptor and the JSF (however, some will argue that the Eurofighter and possibly the Rafale are 5th gen).  Improved avionics over the 4th gen and stealth characteristics are improvement over the 4th generation. 

This is what's is mostly accepted as the Generation of Fighters.  I doubt the Hornet compare to an F-4 or a MiG 21 (3rd and 2nd gen fighters).  Seriously.

The only current fighter aircraft that are considered 5th gen are the JSF and Raptor. While a fleet of SH's will be good for Canada NOW, it will not carry us into 2040 and beyond. You have to remember that our country likes to keep things for long periods of time, just look at the current Hornet and Herc's for example. The JSF or any new fighter for that matter, is a far better platform for new technologies.

Other than the stealth technology, you still haven't convinced me at all that the JSF has anything better to offer than the SH (for the price difference and the lack of a second engine).  Why would the SH not carry us untill 2040?

As far as the Grippen NG, it was mainly an aircraft created by Sweden, for Sweden. While the NG is more exportable and is alot more compatible with NATO than the previous versions, the F-35A is the superior aircraft for ALL missions -- A2A, A2G or simply recon. A few magnitudes less detectable, superior tactically achievable performance, longer range, better sensors, better UI, etc. In purely technical and combat capability terms, the F-35 is vastly superior to the Grippen NG. However, the F-35 is also a lot more expensive, a lot noisier, consumes more fuel, and likely will be more expensive to maintain. But these days a lot of times a fighter aircraft is not bought as a tool of defense. Sometimes they are bought as a job creation program and Canada has already poured millions of dollars in JSF job creation. So only time will tell what will happen.

Nobody here at this stage of the game can come up with statements like these.  The F-35 haven't hit the operational stage yet, never participated in ANY large scale exercice and have certainly not participated in any conflict.  So, unless you work(ed) closely with the JSF test team, you are in no position to comment on any of the performance of the JSF against other aircraft.  To compare 2 aircrafts, you need actual data.  AFAIK, it never dropped anything yet.  They started the AAR trials on the A version last spring and just started flying the STOVL version (B) last summer.  So, there isn't enough actual data to make comments like that.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: DevoBab on November 06, 2008, 20:37:46
Quote
At the risk of sounding pedantic, Sweden is not a member of NATO.  That does not mean that their kit would necessarily be any more or less easy to integrate, but I just thought I would point it out.

Sorry, I'll plead ignorance on that one. I just assumed it would be.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on November 06, 2008, 20:49:01
I believe the Hornet or SH can drop a weapon just as accurately as the JSF.  What makes you think otherwise?

You'll soon find out just how "accurate" the Hornet is. You can't compare an aircraft that was designed using 1970s tech vs one that has the latest weaponry, avionics and radar. It's like saying a 1970's computer can do everything equally that a Pentium 4 can.

Quote
Other than the stealth technology, you still haven't convinced me at all that the JSF has anything better to offer than the SH (for the price difference and the lack of a second engine).  Why would the SH not carry us untill 2040?

I've given you enough data and info, yet you still seem to be the only one who doesn't understand why. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you any further. There is more info our there proving why JSF > SH on so many levels and why the USN will phaseout the SH when the JSF's are ready for delivery.

Quote
Nobody here at this stage of the game can come up with statements like these.  The F-35 haven't hit the operational stage yet, never participated in ANY large scale exercice and have certainly not participated in any conflict.  So, unless you work(ed) closely with the JSF test team, you are in no position to comment on any of the performance of the JSF against other aircraft.  To compare 2 aircrafts, you need actual data.  AFAIK, it never dropped anything yet.  They started the AAR trials on the A version last spring and just started flying the STOVL version (B) last summer.  So, there isn't enough actual data to make comments like that.

All you can do at this stage is compare data, statistics and information on both aircraft. Everyone already knows what will go into the Grippen NG. The JSF is still growing and will outmatch it due to developments in technology.

One question you have to ask yourself is why no other countries purchased the Superhornet in large quantities for their main fleets. The USN basically had no choice, and the Aussies are only using it until the JSF comes online. Currently, more and more countries are not even CONSIDERING the SH as a viable alternative to more advanced aircraft like the Grippen NG, JSF, Block 60 F-16, etc. IMO, Canada will probably do the same in 2012 or whenever they decide to hold their competition.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: time expired on November 06, 2008, 21:16:49
I would suspect the JSF is going to be under very close scrutiny with
the Democrats running things.
                                  Regards
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 06, 2008, 21:31:41
You'll soon find out just how "accurate" the Hornet is. You can't compare an aircraft that was designed using 1970s tech vs one that has the latest weaponry, avionics and radar. It's like saying a 1970's computer can do everything equally that a Pentium 4 can.

A ballistic table is a ballistic table.  It doesn't take a Pentium 4 to interpret that.  All dumb bomb attacks are visual.  Eyeballs are just as accurate (if not more) as a radar in close range. The INS kit will do the rest for ya, or possibly the A/G radar (for a ranging source).  But at these ranges, the 79 or the 81 will do the same job.  For guided weapons, it's usually something that is eighter added to the aircraft (Laser Designator) or into the weapon itself (JDAM).  Weapons on the F-35 will be the same as the ones currently in the SH inventory.  What kind of experience of knowledge do you have about weaponery/gunnery?


I've given you enough data and info, yet you still seem to be the only one who doesn't understand why. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you any further. There is more info our there proving why JSF > SH on so many levels and why the USN will phaseout the SH when the JSF's are ready for delivery.


Actually, you have given lots of speculation.  That's about it.  You never came back with a real straight answer as to what it brings more..  The difference between the USN and us is that the USN has the money to equip itself with a decent fleet of JSF.  We don't.

All you can do at this stage is compare data, statistics and information on both aircraft. Everyone already knows what will go into the Grippen NG. The JSF is still growing and will outmatch it due to developments in technology.

Where are you taking your "data"?  There is no official performance data out there for the F-35 quite yet.  

How can you say the F-35 will outmatch the Grippen that early in the game?  Speculations or facts?  You don't have to answer...  We all know there isn't enough data available out there to come to a conclusion.

One question you have to ask yourself is why no other countries purchased the Superhornet in large quantities for their main fleets. The USN basically had no choice, and the Aussies are only using it until the JSF comes online. Currently, more and more countries are not even CONSIDERING the SH as a viable alternative to more advanced aircraft like the Grippen NG, JSF, Block 60 F-16, etc. IMO, Canada will probably do the same in 2012 or whenever they decide to hold their competition.

All the aircraft you named are single engine aircrafts.  Canada is kinda unique in the sense that we have a very large territory to cover and we don,t have much money to protect it.  We can't afford to loose aircrafts up North when it could be avoided by using a 2 engine aircraft.  Like it or not, pilots like to feel safe.  I think that sense of security would be greatly improved by flying a 2 engines aircraft.  After all, we are the one that take the airplane, fly it, and may not come back.  

I believe and hope that the 2 engine debate will be a great factor in the fighter replacement program.  Not only to make the pilot feel safe, but also for other reasons like combat survivability.

I'll end my contribution to this discussion by what an instructor of mine recently told me (experienced fighter pilot):  "This is my first tour I fly a single engine jet. I don't have enough of my 2 hands to count how many times I had to flame out an engine in flight in my career... I hate that single engine crap."  The very next day, we lost a Hawk to a catastrophic engine failure on an IFR departure.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on November 06, 2008, 22:10:52
After all, we are the one that take the airplane, fly it, and may not come back.  

That is why you get paid the big bucks. If a pilot is afraid to fly in a single, I suggest they find another occupation.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on November 06, 2008, 22:32:34

FYI, the Grippen NG already exists and is in operation.  

Grippen is already in service, Grippen NG is not.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 06, 2008, 22:39:04
Grippen is already in service, Grippen NG is not.

My appologies, I thought I saw the NGs in Winnipeg last August coming back from Nellis.  It was the C/D models.  I will edit my post to reflect this...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 06, 2008, 22:44:08
I think the Max and Ninja show has really outlived any educational value this thread may have had. I am not sure how long I can really stomach reading the same arguments of "JSF is good", "JSF is bad" or; Two engines good", "two engines bad" over and over again. Your stances are set in stone and are unwavering, so I am locking it with the usual caveats. If you have anything additional to add then IM a mod.

Mlnet.Ca Staff
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Retired AF Guy on May 22, 2010, 23:32:14
Article from Aviation Week about the Netherlands decision to cancel participation the F-35 JSF program.

 Article Link  (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A126f6b53-45ed-4603-b333-56e5e9a80e20&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Dutch Vote to Cancel Order for F-35 JSF
Posted by Christina Mackenzie at 5/21/2010 10:40 AM CDT


The Dutch parliament voted last night by 79 votes against 71 to cancel the order for the first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and to end Dutch participation in the program's Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase.

The vote on a motion proposed by the Labor Party was based on the fact that price estimates made by Lockheed Martin in response to the Netherlands' original Request for Information and the Supplemental Request for Information of 2008 are not reliable.

However, Minister of Defense Eimert van Middelkoop said the vote was Labor Party “election rhetoric” prior to the June 9 general election and was quoted by Dutch News as saying that dropping out of the trials would still cost Dutch taxpayers €20 million, after having spent €800 million (some say more than €1 billion) to date.

The Netherlands has been run by a caretaker Labor/Christian Democrat government since the previous government lost a vote of confidence in February over the army's deployment in Afghanistan. Van Middelkoop said in a statement issued on May 20 that he was neither willing nor able to act on Parliament's vote as he believed the government's temporary status means it cannot take such irreversible decisions before the election.

But Labor MP Angelien Eijsink says it is irresponsible to continue with the JSF program. She cites delays, the Nunn-McCurdy cost breach, the 2-year delay of the IOT&E and poor progress in flight testing. She also mentioned that Parliament was still awaiting vital data on noise levels and said the industrial business case for JSF participation was no longer valid given the much lower than anticipated number of orders for the aircraft.

Labor says it wants to continue Dutch participation in the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase but other parties want to end it.

The Royal Dutch Air Force currently operates 90 F-16s, 18 of which are scheduled to be sold to Chile towards the end of this year. Originally the Netherlands was planning to buy 85 F-35s.

If the decision is implemented it won't exactly be a surprise. Dutch politicians have been rumbling for months that the JSF is far too expensive and the Netherlands' participation in the program is now in the hands of the electorate. But given the general economic doom and gloom in Europe right now, chances are high that the Dutch will vote for a party that is not going to be spending for something that many do not see the need for.

If the Dutch do withdraw could this be the encouragement other wavering European participants need to pull the plug too?


With the ongoing economic crisis taking place in Europe, plus the fact that the F-35 has been experiencing a "few problems" may result in more cancellations.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on May 23, 2010, 04:42:31
Dutch cancel.....

Denmark about to do the same.....

Original projected cost of a F-35 : $50 million

Current best (conservative) estimate : $112 million

After a 15% increase from original estimate, the  Nunn-McCurdy law kicks in and requires that Congress be notified and a review of alternatives be conducted.

After a 25% increase from original estimate, Nunn-McCurdy calls for outright cancellation.

Looks like everyone's F-35 decision might be in danger of being made for them......
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Eggy on May 23, 2010, 07:31:56
Quote
If the decision is implemented it won't exactly be a surprise. Dutch politicians have been rumbling for months that the JSF is far too expensive and the Netherlands' participation in the program is now in the hands of the electorate. But given the general economic doom and gloom in Europe right now, chances are high that the Dutch will vote for a party that is not going to be spending for something that many do not see the need for.
The party that is leading the polls is in favour of acquiring the F-35. Elections are in two weeks so I don't think a lot will change.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on May 23, 2010, 12:20:32
Dutch cancel.....

Denmark about to do the same.....

Original projected cost of a F-35 : $50 million

Current best (conservative) estimate : $112 million

After a 15% increase from original estimate, the  Nunn-McCurdy law kicks in and requires that Congress be notified and a review of alternatives be conducted.

After a 25% increase from original estimate, Nunn-McCurdy calls for outright cancellation.

Looks like everyone's F-35 decision might be in danger of being made for them......

Of course, what are the alternatives for the Americans? The Europeans can go for the SAAB Gripen, Dassault Rafale or the Eurofighter Typhoon (or maybe a Russian plane as a very outside possibility)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on May 23, 2010, 12:30:36
Of course, what are the alternatives for the Americans?

 

Super Hornet, Block 52 F-16s, Silent Eagle, etc...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on May 24, 2010, 02:46:08
The irony of having to ditch the F-35 for a 1970 vintage airframe (especially the F-16) will be appreciated by the ghost of Colonel John Boyd.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on May 24, 2010, 05:42:26
1970 vintage airframe (especially the F-16)

The original F-16A and the current Block 52 F-16C are worlds apart.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Petamocto on May 24, 2010, 09:37:14
It is absolutely staggering how much money the military spends sometimes not to have something.  Also, why is it that manufacturers can get away with anything they want and charge governments unlimited amounts of increases/fines, but we never charge them fines when they break the same contracts?

Not blaming only the Air Force here, we're all guilty of it (it's just that the AF toys are the most expensive).

That's why I said in another thread that we have no business as a middle power being involved in the development of anything because we just can't afford it. 

[/vent]
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on May 24, 2010, 10:28:56
It is absolutely staggering how much money the military spends sometimes not to have something.  Also, why is it that manufacturers can get away with anything they want and charge governments unlimited amounts of increases/fines, but we never charge them fines when they break the same contracts?

Not blaming only the Air Force here, we're all guilty of it (it's just that the AF toys are the most expensive).

That's why I said in another thread that we have no business as a middle power being involved in the development of anything because we just can't afford it. 

[/vent]

I would disagree...have you seen what an area air defence destroyer goes for?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Petamocto on May 24, 2010, 12:37:56
I would disagree...have you seen what an area air defence destroyer goes for?

Because you came up with one example you want to disagree with me as far as overall trends?

How much does a new fighter jet compared to a LAV?  How much does a new Chinook cost compared to a Leopard?

How much does a C17 and infrastructure cost compared to a Mechanized Infantry battalion?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on May 24, 2010, 12:42:37
Because you came up with one example you want to disagree with me as far as overall trends?

How much does a new fighter jet compared to a LAV?  How much does a new Chinook cost compared to a Leopard?

How much does a C17 and infrastructure cost compared to a Mechanized Infantry battalion?

Because you so obviously missed it...I was pointing out how expensive any naval project "tends" to be. ::)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on May 24, 2010, 12:55:18

How much does a new fighter jet compared to a LAV?  How much does a new Chinook cost compared to a Leopard?

How much does a C17 and infrastructure cost compared to a Mechanized Infantry battalion?

other than saying "air stuff is expensive", do you have a point here ?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on May 24, 2010, 14:37:20
Wading in again.

Incrementalism
OODA
Logistical Inertia
Optimization

747 – 1968 747-100, 747-200, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400ER, 747-8 2010

Arleigh Burke
1980 – Design studies, 1983 – 3 Competitors,  1985 – Contract Award, 1988 –First Keel, 1989 – First Launch, 1991 – first Commission (11 years development and construction)
1998 – Flight II  Commissioned
2000 – Flight IIA – 5”/54
2001 – Flight IIA-5”/62
2002 – Flight IIA – 5”/62 no CIWS, 2009 – Latest Commission, 
6 Future Hulls launched, building or contracted.

The closer you get to the optimal the less room there is to optimize.
The less room there is to optimize the less reason there is switch to a completely new design and the more expensive the new design becomes.

Concurrently you have to deal with logistical inertia – we power cars with gas because we have lots of gas to power cars – we use 5.56 and 7.62 because we have lots available – we use the railway gauge we do because the Roman wagons left ruts of that size. 

Cars are computerized 1880s concepts with updated materials.

Industrial operations are based on processes that have advanced through wood, stone, ceramics, bronze, iron and steel versions powered by muscles, wind, water, gravity, springs, steam, combustion and electricity. 
The usual processing plant is engaged in a process of continual improvement.  Very few green-field plants are established unless the market demands a completely new capability. Incrementalism is the order of the day.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to foresee a world of the future where there is much that is recognizable (Block 752 F-16s, M3347 HMMWV, M1C 47 Abrams etc) while at the same time there will be M1A2 Scramjets and UAVs and UGVs being operated.
That seems to be the lesson from many of these Great Leap Forward projects where the instigators are looking to get a revolutionary advantage from systems that have already experienced generations of optimization. There just ain’t that much room.

Is there much wrong with the old DDH hull form?  Or for that matter the CPF?   How do their speeds compare to theoretical limits and historical capabilities?  Or is the real problem with the Canadian fleet simply that there is no ongoing plan to refine, replace and upgrade so that the fleet can be constantly upgraded?
 
Meanwhile money wasted on diminishing returns could be spent on operational needs or “truly” radical innovations.  And you will only find the “truly” radical by leaving funds in the kitty for people to play with concepts and fail...but it is one thing to “waste” funds building one off concepts....yet another to plan on the infrastructure to build tens, or hundreds, or thousands, or even millions of notional systems that offer decreasing returns over what you can already produce.

An axe is recognizably an axe no matter if it is a chunk of flint on an antler haft or if it is of Teflon coated tempered steel with an ergonomically designed carbon fibre handle and a cushioned, rubberized grip.
The latter does not offer a revolutionary capability beyond the capabilities of the former.
Now a flint knife versus a flint axe.... that is another matter entirely.

Or, militarily, the Sherman vs King Tiger debate.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on May 24, 2010, 15:33:28
Kirkhill,

I don't know if it's your work but....

(Block 752 F-16s, M3347 HMMWV, M1C 47 Abrams etc)

You must mean Block 52.

while at the same time there will be M1A2 Scramjets and UAVs and UGVs being operated.

Unless your Abrams is capable of supersonic speeds, it is useless to strap a scramjet to it.

I really do not see your point at all.  Are you saying that in today's environment, there is no way to drastically improve our capabilities because it's already advanced?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on May 24, 2010, 16:35:37
No, SSM, extrapolation to the logical absurdity.

If the F16 reached 85% of the optimal design for a manned air to air combat vehicle at its launch in the 1970s then development is spent on reducing the remaining 15% of potential growth to 10%, 5%, 1%, .1%.....

Now you can follow two paths to reduce that remaining potential.  You can continue from where you are with an existing platform, accept its limitations and work towards achieving 95-99% of potential - parlaying the existing infrastructure.  Or, you can back up, clean the boards, take a running start and work towards achieving 99-99.9% of potential but taking a whole lot of new chances, learning a bunch of new lessons and building a whole new, and expensive infrastructure.

So, I believe, you could conceivably end up, somewhere round about the year 2050, with either a fleet of F22s and F35s OR a fleet of F16 Block 752s, F-18 T/Us and F15 Strike Eagle IVs - not to mention B52s still being maintained in the air.

Likewise for tanks -  I don't expect M1A2s to have scramjets strapped on the back deck because I don't think a supersonic tank is possible or necessary.  Nor do I think a 120 km/h tank offers a revolutionary advantage over a 90 km/h tank.  It does have an advantage but won't change warfare.


By contrast an operational  scramjet UAV is as like as not to be adopted into US Army service as US Air Force service and this be type classified as an M1 model that was subesquently upgraded and type as an M1A2.

And, no, it has very little to do with my job beyond the fact that I have spent a career applying technologies to people's problems - most often by implementing incremental, evolutionary change than greenfield, revolutionary change.

Change doesn't happen by plant engineers suddenly throwing out all their 75% efficient electric motors and replacing them wiht 95% motors.  It happens by implementing a policy of buying 95s as 75s fail.  Eventually the whole plant is totally turned over.

Kind of like the tale of my grandfather's axe.   My grandfather bought an axe.  My father bought a new handle.  I bought a new head. It is still my grandfather's axe.





Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Petamocto on May 24, 2010, 17:15:53
other than saying "air stuff is expensive"...

In my first post I stated that all three elements have their own expensive things.

I am all for the Air Force getting every dime of their useful purchases like C17s and Chinooks, because we actually get something.

What staggers me is the amount of money spent by governments and forces of the world not to get anything.  Meaning cancellation fees, investment costs and then pulling out early, etc.

It just seems unbelievable that you can spend billions of dollars to have nothing.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on May 24, 2010, 17:21:05

It just seems unbelievable that you can spend billions of dollars to have nothing.

It is, in part, unavoidable. Sometimes R&D leads to dead ends, thats just the nature of it. Sometimes you just have to cut your losses too.

Then there is the unfortunate political BS like the Sea King replacement......
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on May 24, 2010, 17:24:47
Yes, a billion dollars to buy no helicopters.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Petamocto on May 24, 2010, 17:27:06
It is, in part, unavoidable. Sometimes R&D leads to dead ends (1)

Then there is the unfortunate political BS like the Sea King replacement (2)

1.  Absolutely agreed, which is why I keep saying that we shouldn't be spending a dime on researching anything because we don't have enough money.  We should request industry to build things and then we buy what they have for sale if it's good, or if Canadian companies don't want to do that we should buy from other countries things that already work (C17s).

2.  This one is entirely our fault, and yes I don't think anyone on this board or in government would disagree with it.  Just very, very, sad/
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on May 24, 2010, 17:28:10
Yes, a billion dollars to buy no helicopters.

.....to end up buying hellicopters anyhow, one that was the same as was cancelled (CH-149) and onethat no one else flies, at great cost in system development and great delays (CH-148)

We could have been flying Merlins for how many years ?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on May 24, 2010, 17:30:57
we shouldn't be spending a dime on researching anything because we don't have enough money. 

Unfortunately for us, we must carry out research is some areas because :

a) No other country is doing it as they have no need ; or
b) Countries doing research in "x" will not share their findings/technology with us.

Alot of the work done by DRDC is necessary because of those 2 situations, beleive me.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Antoine on May 24, 2010, 19:11:43
I am out of my lane here but seems to me that advanced technologies is an important part to win a war, but of course not the only one as we can see in present and recent conflicts. Having our own independence in military R&D could help us if we get in another major war. But that is my  :2c:

I found this interesting hyperlink:

www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars)

www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/war_tech_gallery.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/war_tech_gallery.shtml)

War and Technology Gallery, By Matthew Bennett, Last updated 2009-11-05
Quote
Warfare and technology are intimately related. From the earliest times, the development of industrial and architectural techniques combined to create both improved weapon systems and fortifications designed to frustrate them. Then came the development of gunpowder weapons in the West, just prior to 1500. This advance, combined with improved shipbuilding, paved the way for the galleon - a machine for world conquest.
But it was the technological developments that took place from 1750 onwards, increasing on an exponential curve, that really transformed modern warfare and spread across much of the globe. The result was seen in the use of a whole range of high explosives, aircraft and submarines in the early 20th century. Then within 50 years the nuclear bomb was created - a weapon too dangerous to use.
Despite these sophisticated advances, 'conventional' warfare continues to proliferate, and the 'low-tech' AK47 assault rifle is probably responsible for more deaths than high-grade technology.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: belka on May 24, 2010, 22:12:06
Missleading thread title.

All they said is that they are canceling their first airplane (1 airplane) and that airplane was meant for their operational test program, which is why they are canceling their operational test program. This does not mean they not buying F35's.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Angry-Kraut on May 24, 2010, 22:40:34
Interesting. In my honest opinion, the F35 is junk. I know Canada has invested 120million into the F-35 program, but why not go with a cheaper, more practical multi-role fighter like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet? Canada doesn't need a hover, short take off aircraft with stealth capabilities lol Just save 20million a plane and upgrade to the Super hornet. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on May 24, 2010, 22:45:34
Canada doesn't need a hover, short take off aircraft with stealth capabilities

Good thing that its not the version we are considering then eh ?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Angry-Kraut on May 24, 2010, 22:51:59
Good thing that its not the version we are considering then eh ?

Either way, at 89million a plane is it worth it?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on May 24, 2010, 22:58:10
Either way,

Helps to know which airplane we're talking about when commenting.


 
Quote
at 89million a plane is it worth it?

I have my opinions on that but i dont make policy and i'm not a fighter guy.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Angry-Kraut on May 24, 2010, 23:05:56
Helps to know which airplane we're talking about when commenting.

I have my opinions on that but i dont make policy and i'm not a fighter guy.

Well I believe the variant Canada is looking at is the F-35A, although I can't confirm that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II     Under variants

I'm also not a fighter guy, but I can see that amount of money going to better programs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II  Under unit cost 
http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Lightning+II+Cost+has+Doubled+F136+Engine+Completes+Afterburner+Test/article17944.htm  First para
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on May 24, 2010, 23:14:21
     Under variants
 


I was aware what the variants were thanks.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on May 25, 2010, 00:19:12
Well I believe the variant Canada is looking at is the F-35A, although I can't confirm that.

Dude, you are contradicting yourself:

Canada doesn't need a hover, short take off aircraft with stealth capabilities

The A model is not VTOL or STOVL.

FYI, yes it would be convenient to get a STOL aircraft.  Why?  Have you looked at the lenght or the runways up North?  It's eighter that, or the Government will need to invest to lenghten the runways we use for our FOLs.  It will come down to a cost comparison.

For Stealth capabilities, tell me why it is not a good thing?  Don't you think it would be a good thing to be able to do a DCA or AI mission, and be able to hide in the Main Beam Clutter for longer because our RCS is smaller, and have the bad guys on our radars before they can? 

I am not defending the JSF.  I personally think the single engine thing is not the way to go.  However, the decision is made at a much higher level than mine and I'll fly whatever I'm told to fly.  But the JSF is definately not a piece of junk.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Angry-Kraut on May 25, 2010, 00:21:09
*shrug* true or not, still my opinion. I prefer a good old leopard anyway  ;)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on May 25, 2010, 00:27:49
Oddly, there have been plenty of potentially revolutionary changes developed using the F-16 platform, including the cranked arrow F-16 XL, Agile Falcon and VISTA, as well as inspiring similar designs like the IAI LAVI and Mitsubishi F-2. These planes used drastic changes to the basic airframe or control software (or both) to really move the performance parameters. Often, the only real reasons they were not adopted as the "next generation" F-16 had to do with politics (needing to keep the McDonnell-Douglas plant open had a lot to do with the adoption of the Strike Eagle over the F-16XL), or logistics.

WRT getting high performance equipment at lower costs, the incentives have to be different. Current procurement systems reward spending tons of money and building bureaucratic empires rather than hardware. Maybe if the incentive was a generous cash prize to whoever can deliver a piece of kit to specification "x", low cost, creative and out of the box solutions would be more available, while technological dead ends would not cost the taxpayer a dime.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Retired AF Guy on May 29, 2010, 12:14:06
On a related subject. The Ottawa Citizen is reporting that it will cost $9 billion to replace the CF-18. Here is the article reproduced with the usual caveats.

Quote
$9B pricetag likely for Canada's next-generation fighter aircraft
 
By David Pugliese, Canwest News Service May 29, 2010

Replacing Canada's CF-18s with a new generation of fighter aircraft will cost taxpayers around $9 billion, one of the most expensive military equipment purchases ever, the Ottawa Citizen has learned.

The Conservative government confirmed in 2008 its plans to purchase 65 fighter aircraft and is expected to approve the project some time this year, air force officials say.

The Defence Department would not provide a cost estimate, claiming that to make the figure public would undercut the procurement process for what is being called the next generation fighter. "To date, no decision has been made by the government of Canada on the choice of a next-generation fighter aircraft or on the procurement approach," added DND spokeswoman Jocelyn Sweet.

But in April, Col. Randy Meiklejohn, of the Directorate of Aerospace Requirements, told a gathering of defence-industry representatives in Ottawa that the cost of the program would be about $9 billion. The air force, he pointed out, plans to have the new aircraft in service starting in 2017.

The figure he used would include not only the 65 aircraft but also spare parts and long-term support.

A number of different fighter aircraft could be considered as a replacement for the CF-18s, but the military has been partial to the U.S.-built Joint Strike Fighter.

The Defence Department's claim that it cannot release any figures associated with a new aircraft purchase until the project is approved by government appears to contradict its previous position. DND documents obtained through the Access to Information law previously estimated the full cost to replace at least 80 CF-18 fighter aircraft would be $10.5 billion.

Steven Staples, president of the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute, said DND didn't want to provide the $9-billion figure because it's worried about a backlash from taxpayers.

"Their plan is to keep this in the backrooms and try to get this deal signed without anyone noticing," said Staples, who has spoken out against what he says are high levels of military spending. "The government wants to spend $9 billion on a stealth fighter when this country has a $50 billion deficit. They should try spending a little more on health care instead."

Staples noted that the cost of the project is creeping up without explanation — at one point the government was going to spend $10.5 billion on 80 fighters; now it is $9 billion for 65. "Who knows what this will end up costing Canadians?" he said.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris, who raised the issue of the next-generation fighters in the House of Commons Thursday, said it is not clear at this point why Canada needs to spend billions on a new fighter jets.

He pointed out that in March, the Canadian Forces received the last of its newly upgraded CF-18 fighters. That project cost $2.6 billion.

An air force study produced last year also noted the need for manned fighter aircraft will decrease starting after 2019 as unmanned aerial vehicles — or drones — and other advanced technologies became more common.

But there are those in the defence community who say the new jets are needed.

The Air Force Association of Canada has pointed out that the jets are necessary to support military forces overseas and to protect Canadian sovereignty. Piloted aircraft can't be fully replaced by drones, the association argues.

Meanwhile, in the Commons Thursday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said a new generation fighter would not only contribute to making sure the military has the right equipment, it would also provide opportunities for domestic aerospace companies.

"There is eye-watering technology now available, and a fifth-generation fighter aircraft will be brought to Canada after the year 2017," he said.

But MacKay also appeared to contradict DND's claim that no decision had been made on how the procurement program for the new fighter aircraft will be handled when he said there would be an open competition. MacKay went on to suggest the decision would be between the Joint Strike Fighter and another aircraft he didn't name.

Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister at DND, said he found it strange the department was not being more forthcoming about the new fighter program. "Whenever you're going to be spending billions of dollars, you need to involve industry, involve the public and involve Parliament," said Williams. "It makes no sense to hide this."

He noted that when he was with the Defence Department, it was common for equipment project leaders to talk about their programs as well as give details on the rough estimates of project costs — now that isn't being done. Williams said since he left DND in 2005, there has been a significant increase in secrecy around military-procurement programs.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service 

 Article Link  (http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/pricetag+likely+Canada+next+generation+fighter+aircraft/3085225/story.html)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Retired AF Guy on May 29, 2010, 12:39:41
In reference to my last post here is part of Thursdays discussion Defence Minister Mackay about the Canada's next fighter:

Quote
Mr. Jack Harris: 
    Mr. Chair, did I take the minister's earlier comments in my last round of questions to mean that the government has already decided to purchase planes from the joint strike group fighter program?


Hon. Peter MacKay: 
    Mr. Chair, the hon. member is mistaken. None whatsoever. I should have referred to this with the more generic term that this is the “next generation” of aircraft. The joint strike fighter is one of the two aircraft, and there may be others. But I think those are the two main contenders that we are looking at. Obviously we want to get the best value, the best aircraft, and we have already embarked upon investments to ensure that happens.
(My emphasis)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Retired AF Guy on June 12, 2010, 19:55:49
The Netherlands just had their national elections yesterday, and there appears to be no clear winner. It looks like another political coalition, which I understand are quite common in Dutch politics. One of the topics during the election was whether the Dutch would buy the F-35 or not. Here is a report (Reproduced under the Section 29 of the Fair Dealings Section of the Copyright Act) from Aviation Week on possible outcomes:

Quote
Dutch Election Leaves JSF Situation No Clearer
Posted by Robert Wall at 6/10/2010 1:06 PM CDT

Dutch voters have gone to the polls in an election where continued participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program became a campaign issue.

But with the results now in, as many had feared going into the election, there would be no clear indication what might happen to the F-16 modernization program. The electorate has not delivered a clear vote, so JSF hangs in the balance.

If anything can be read out of the results, it's a tad bit of positive news for JSF supporters. Although things are close, the VVD party has narrowly secured the most seats -- but not nearly enough to govern. But the VVD has supported JSF and since it holds 31 seats in the 150 seat parliament, a tad more than the JSF-opposing Labor party, it will likely get the first chance to form a coalition government. How that coalition is assembled with really dictate what happens on JSF.

An answer to that question could be weeks if not months away.


 Article Link  (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a59ff151d-e458-48dd-be1e-eb8d1e3e819f&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Retired AF Guy on July 01, 2010, 19:46:24
From Aviation Week, more on the possibility that the Dutch may pull out of the F-35 evaluation phase (Reproduced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act):

Quote
Dutch May Pull Out Of Next F-35 Phase

Jul 1, 2010

By Robert Wall

LONDON — The U.S. Joint Strike Fighter program office is developing options to allow the Netherlands to withdraw from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter initial operational test and evaluation phase.

A Dutch delegation recently met with U.S. officials to discuss the issue. The Dutch participation in the IOT&E phase is in limbo as a result of a combination of factors: a parliamentary move prior to recent general elections and the uncertainty over the country’s leadership owing to no clear election outcome.

Prior to the election, parliament voted to end its participation in the IOT&E phase, but program supporters say the vote should not have come up. They argue that a prior agreement by political parties not to take major program decisions until after the elections, which was decided after the fall of the elected government in February, means the JSF decision should not have been taken.

Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop told legislators that he has notified U.S. officials of the current situation and asked to prepare options to cancel the already placed order for the one IOT&E aircraft and for long-lead funding for a second. Devising those options will take several weeks, he says in a June 30 letter to parliament. One of the main issues to sort out is what the costs of such a move will be.

He also says he expects to update parliament on JSF cost figures during the summer to help inform a decision on the path forward for the F-16 replacement program.

 Article Link]  (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/07/01/02.xml&headline=Dutch%20May%20Pull%20Out%20Of%20Next%20F-35%20Phase&channel=defense)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MCG on May 11, 2011, 13:01:28
Production runs have started.
Quote
USAF receives first production F-35s
11 May 2011
Bryn Weese (QMI Agency Parliamentary Bureau)
The London Free Press

OTTAWA -- The U.S. Air Force has taken possession of the first production F-35 fighter jet and another eight are ready to be delivered, according to developer Lockheed Martin.

On Friday, the first of nearly 2,000 fifth-generation stealth fighter jets for the U.S. flew from Lockheed Martin's facility in Fort Worth, Texas, to Edwards Air Force Base in California. Canada's Conservative government has committed to buy 65 F-35s for $9 billion plus an estimated $7 billion in maintenance costs during the life of the aircraft.

The Canadian Forces will start to receive its F-35s, which will ultimately replace its aging fleet of CF-18s, in 2016.

"This first aircraft is the beginning of the modernization of U.S. Air Force, Marine and naval air power and for our coalition partners around the world," Lockheed Martin's Larry Lawson said in a statement Monday.

"The F-35 family of aircraft will bring an incredible increase in capability that our men and women defending us deserve. Today, we begin to fulfil the vision of our government and international customers."

News of the first production plane's delivery is bolstering officials here that the aircraft the federal government is buying will be delivered on time and on budget.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Tuesday the government is moving ahead with its plans, which they say will be a boon for Canada's aerospace industry.

"Our government's commitment to procure 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft as well as spares, infrastructure, weapons and simulators for $9 billion provides almost $12 billion worth of industrial benefits for Canadian industry," MacKay said in an e-mail Tuesday.

"I'm proud to be part of a government that is successfully procuring the right plane for the Canadian Forces at the right price for the Canadian taxpayer."

The government insists its price of $75 million per plane is firm, but critics in Canada and the U.S. have long argued the aircraft will cost far more than current estimates.

Earlier this year, the Parliamentary Budget Office released a report estimating the planes could cost as much as $149 million each and $300 million in service costs over their 30-year lifespan, though the government vehemently disputes that figure.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris said his party, now the official opposition, won't let up on the aircraft procurement, the largest in Canadian military history.

Opposition parties have blasted the government for what they allege was a sole-source deal and have wondered whether the F-35 is too rich for Canada's blood.

"I don't think things are moving along as expected. We've had considerable delays and cost overruns," Harris said Tuesday. "No one outside of their own (Conservative) spin doctors believed the price that they were putting on this."

He said the NDP will continue to press the government on the F-35 purchase, not only on the process without a competitive bid, but also whether the F-35 is the right plane for Canada.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on May 11, 2011, 21:55:35
I would love to see Peter McKay stand up in the House and say:

"Mr Speaker, the Honourable Member has raised valid questions about Canada's purchase of new fighter planes. After consultation with the Chief of the Air Staff and the CDS for a detailed assessment, Canada will commit to purchasing 100 CF-35's as being appropriate to our needs...."

 >:D
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: cameron on May 12, 2011, 10:58:02
Ok, while I'm all for competitive bidding, some politicians need to educate themselves before they speak.  I'd like NDP Defence Critic Jack Harris to explain which other stealth aircraft is out there that can be an alternative to the F-35.  Unless I've been living under a rock I don't know of any.  While I'm certainly no right wing conservative, I fear that if the NDP ever get into power the Canadian military will be thrown back into the dark days of the 70's and early 80's, when they had to make do with hopelessly obsolete equipment.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on May 15, 2011, 14:59:17
Ok, while I'm all for competitive bidding, some politicians need to educate themselves before they speak.  I'd like NDP Defence Critic Jack Harris to explain which other stealth aircraft is out there that can be an alternative to the F-35.  Unless I've been living under a rock I don't know of any.  While I'm certainly no right wing conservative, I fear that if the NDP ever get into power the Canadian military will be thrown back into the dark days of the 70's and early 80's, when they had to make do with hopelessly obsolete equipment.

Su-35S  :) 

http://www.ausairpower.net/flanker.html
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on May 15, 2011, 15:09:14
Or how about the J-20 Black Silk (http://defense-update.com/wp/20101227_j-20.html)?

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airforceworld.com%2Fpla%2Fgfx%2Fchina-4th-generation-stealth-fighter%2F5th_generation_fighter_china_05.jpg&hash=94485debe18ece9e68b2c01ad4426c47)

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: dinicthus on May 15, 2011, 17:19:57
I know they're costly. But air superiority is the number one priority in any armed conflict, is it not?

After you own the air, and only after you own the air, can you commit your full strength on the ground.

I remember reading about how a pair of U.S. pilots in A-10s (a plane that needs air superiority to be established before it does its best work) destroyed something like 110 tanks in one day, or some ridiculous number. at, say, 300 grand per tank, plus death benefits, etc., that's over 30 million dollars and on up inflicted by 2 planes in 24 hours.

Planes, especially the ones that deliver air superiority on a platter, are expensive because they're worth it. You may not be able to put an exact price tag on air superiority, but whatever it costs, it facilitates a broad spectrum of capability to be brought to bear by forces that are better used focusing on destroying ground and sea targets than they are always having to look out for enemy aircraft.

Armour: 300,000+ bucks per tank
Aircraft: 9B$
Ability to concentrate on "close with and destroy the enemy" instead of having to duck for shelter from enemy air: Priceless.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Paul_Ontario on May 15, 2011, 19:34:10
I read on Wikipedia

"

CF-35
The Canadian CF-35 will differ from the American F-35A through the addition of a drag chute and an F-35B/C style refueling probe.[260][261] Norway may also use the drag chute option, as they also have icy runways.[127]"
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on May 16, 2011, 08:18:23
I know they're costly. But air superiority is the number one priority in any armed conflict, is it not?

If the JSF's mission was Air Superiority, it would make sense... But... This aircraft is a multi-role aircraft (read self-escort in a conventional war).  The F-22 is an Air Supremacy platform...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on May 16, 2011, 09:53:00
Just like the PBO report stated, there is no other aircraft that meets the SAR.  ONLY the F-35 meets CF needs.

Here's why

Senior Researchers Center for Security Studies


"ZURICH, Switzerland, May 5, 2011/ Troy Media – Canadians are missing something when it comes to their debate over the purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter, also knows as the F-35: two unprecedented shifts are rocking the global arms market for fighter jets.

First, there’s a quasi-revolution taking place in fighter jet technology. We are now entering a period that will be dominated by “fifth generation” aircraft, fighters which will have “all-aspect” stealth abilities with internal weapons systems, integrated avionics at the pilot’s fingertips, and “supercruise” capabilities that greatly enhance flying performance. There’s no question that when it becomes operative, the F-35 will be the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world.

Opponents missing the big picture
While opponents of the F-35 argue that Canada’s aging CF-18 Hornets can be replaced with fourth (and “fourth+”) generation aircraft, they’re missing the broader point. Upgraded fourth generation aircraft – like the F-18 Super Hornet – will be able to fly future combat missions, but that won’t stop them from becoming increasingly obsolete. It won’t happen overnight, but eventually fourth generation aircraft will go the way of third and second generation aircraft: to the dump.

The F-35 will have a qualitative edge over older aircraft models no matter what the upgrade. The only comparable fighter is the F-22 Raptor, flown exclusively by the U.S. Air Force. But Washington has already phased out the Raptor’s production, having placed all of its bets on the F-35. Our allies have gotten the message: Britain, Australia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Norway will all be flying F-35s by 2020. Israel, Japan and others are likely to follow.

If Canadians want to equip their air force with the best available tools, they need to focus on next generation technology. There’s little point in looking backwards. The future rests with fifth, not fourth, generation technology. The risk in spending a lesser fortune today on a supped-up version of the CF-18 is that Canada will find itself replacing outdated hardware before long. That’s an expensive proposition.

Second, the fighter-jet industry has become increasingly polarized. The Americans, the Russians, and the Chinese are tomorrow’s heavyweights. While some Canadians find it suspicious that no alternative bids were entertained when selecting the F-35, in reality, there are virtually no competitors.

When a government decides to purchase military hardware from another country, it isn’t only thinking about improving the quality of its armed forces. It’s also thinking about the political and strategic signals it’s sending to others. The arms trade can be a political minefield. Ideally, Canada will buy its fighters from an ally. In doing so, we’ll avoid sending an unintended message with our purchase and we’ll pre-emptively grease the wheels in the event spare parts are needed during periods of crisis. It’s important, too, that Canada signs off with a manufacturer that will survive over the long haul. That will ease with maintenance, upgrades, and future developments.

Buy Russian? Chinese?
Where does that leave Canada? We could approach the French or the Swedes. Both have sophisticated options in the Rafale and Gripen but, like the Super Hornet, these planes rely on older technology. And given the huge investment needed to leap into the next generation, both countries are likely to eventually close shop. It’s possible that a European consortium, like the one behind the Eurofighter Typhoon, will emerge in the future, but it’s a long shot. Several European partners have already invested in the F-35 project, so they won’t be inclined to support another risky venture. Like it or not, the era of the European fighter jet is coming to a close.

That leaves Russia and China. Both countries are actively developing next generation fighters to rival the F-35. Russia began testing the PAK-FA a year ago, while China unveiled its J-20 in January. But are Canadians really prepared to fly Russian or Chinese jets into battle? The political and strategic ramification would be monumental. What would our allies think? What would Moscow and Beijing think? Neither option will do.

While the F-35 deal isn’t perfect, it’s the only deal in town.

Alex Wilner and Marco Wyss are Senior Researchers at the Center for Security Studies at the ETH-Zurich, Switzerland. Dr. Wilner is also a Fellow at the Macdonald Laurier Institute in Ottawa."


http://www.troymedia.com/2011/05/05/the ... -the-f-35/

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: FoverF on May 16, 2011, 17:45:40
If Canadians want to equip their air force with the best available tools...

They don't, and they shouldn't.

They want the cheapest possible tools, which will allow them to continue ignoring the military.

It's like when you buy airline tickets, you DON'T want to fly on the best possible airplanes that money can buy. You want to fly on the CHEAPEST possible airline that isn't going to crash. And there's nothing wrong with that line of thinking.

It may come back to bite us in the *** if we get involved in a heavy-metal shooting war in the next 50 years, but most Canadian also blissfully have great difficulty conceiving of any scenario where that could ever possibly happen.



Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on June 01, 2011, 12:18:18
An interesting piece by LGen (Ret'd) Ken Pennie, past Chief of the Air Staff and DCinC NORAD.

Frontline article - Strategy and the F-35 (http://www.frontline-canada.com/downloads/11_DEF3_F35_KenPennie.pdf)

...excerpt from article, full article at link above:

Quote
...Conclusion

Canada needs to replace the CF-18 relatively soon, therefore this debate matters. Knowing how long we will likely be operating a replacement aircraft, DND has established that only the latest generation of aircraft design can fully meet Canada’s requirements far enough into the future. Since fighter aircraft are very expensive, a robust capability and longevity of service are essential. The JSF is the result of a tough and protracted selection process that will leave it the only U.S. fighter in long term production. A Canadian competition, however desirable by some, would be very problematic at this stage, especially since Canada has assessed that only the F-35 meets its mandatory requirements. Since cost has been a driving factor in the program from the outset, the MOU arrangement is the least expensive way to acquire this advanced capability, and it offers excellent high value potential to Canadian industry. While the F-35 clearly has some issues, it still remains a reasonable long term investment for Canada. As a member of NATO, NORAD and the United Nations – with the inherent “Responsibility to Protect” – Canada must be willing to share the costs of this commitment by investing in the necessary military equipment. While politics is important, the future of Canada’s role in the world is at stake. The F-35 will provide excellent support to Canada’s foreign and defence policies for the next 40 years. It is an important national military capability that will enable Canada to maintain its respected position. While it has great promise, it is not without significant risk. These risks must bemonitored and addressed carefully – and the government must be fully transparent in so doing. Potential cost escalation and potential mitigation must be dealt with openly, to shore up public confidence. While the fighter replacement is indeed costly, the capability potential of the F-35 is too important to lose.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on June 01, 2011, 13:35:22
Couldn't agree more with the article. Right plane, resulting from the right process coming at the right time.   The government botched the roll out PR . . .   sometimes I think the tall forehead types in the PMO couldn't organize beer party in a brewery. 

The world is going all wobbly really fast . .  the middle east is a mess that is getting worse, euroland sovereign debt is a ticking fiscal bomb, the nutters running Iran are oh so close to having a functional nuclear device, India-Pakistan-China are arming up & ready to have at each other in the not too distant future.

I'll go out on a limb and predict we will end up getting at least 100 CF-35's in our inventory before 2020.


Because if you want peace, be prepare for war.

True for the Romans, still true today.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 01, 2011, 15:11:10
I agree with you Haletown.

And while we are at it, lets buy that redundant UK aircraft carrier (in COTL form) so we can deploy 30 to 36 of those F-35's where needed without having to "bum" parking space on someone's airbase, that does not necessarily wants us there. I know this means buying the Navy version of the 35's but hell, we already have done that with the 18's and I gather the fighter jock's community has developed good relations with the US Navy as a result.
 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: skater021 on June 01, 2011, 16:19:34
Single engine over priced. Not a proven platform why spend on a fighter still not in production? when we can get a twin engine fighter ie. the F18 superhornet lastest model at a 3rd of the price.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on June 01, 2011, 16:26:16
I profess to know very little of the ins and outs of being a jet fighter pilot and what is the best plane we're looking for.

But why is everyone an "expert"  when the subject of jets, tanks, ships, airplanes, etc comes up? Some of you know less than I do, but you insist on challenging fighter pilots and aircrew who know WTH they are talking about.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on June 01, 2011, 16:43:31
I profess to know very little of the ins and outs of being a jet fighter pilot and what is the best plane we're looking for.

But why is everyone an "expert"  when the subject of jets, tanks, ships, airplanes, etc comes up? Some of you know less than I do, but you insist on challenging fighter pilots and aircrew who know WTH they are talking about.

Well said.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on June 01, 2011, 16:43:51
when we can get a twin engine fighter ie. the F18 superhornet lastest model at a 3rd of the price.

Surely you are not advocating that Canada buys a jet made in the USA. What will we do when the US invades us and we try to defend ourselves using US-controlled technology ??
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on June 01, 2011, 16:45:04
Well said.

Thank you. Not totally original as a former CAS (I think) said it far more eloquently than I did. I tend to be blunt to the point of irritation some times.

While I'm at it, how about we that are NOT fighter pilots, or at least Air types- shut up for a bit? We don't fly them nor maintain them, we don't employ them nor do we task them. We don't know diddly about aerodynamics, nor do we know anything about jet engines and thrust to weight ratio etc. So why do we profess expertise about such subjects?
We don't do that to doctors or the medical profession......
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on June 01, 2011, 18:49:01
Canada’s F-35s not operational
until 2020, Lockheed Martin says
Posted on Wed, Jun 1, 2011, 4:42 pm by Colin Horgan Canada’s F-35 fighter jets will not be operational until 2020, a Lockheed Martin representative told iPolitics in Ottawa on Wednesday. “Canada has had a slight delay in their production,” says Keith ....

 
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2cETgm/ipolitics.ca/2011/06/01/canada%E2%80%99s-f-35s-not-operational-until-2020-lockheed/
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MCG on June 01, 2011, 18:59:57
Single engine
Thanks for illustrating your ignorance of aerospace and reliability engineering (and if that's not the case, you are being disingenuous).  Single vs twin engine was a significant factor for norther flying operations in decades past when engines were less reliable - we can the reliability from a single engine of today compared to two engines of past generations.

over priced
By your opinion.  Have you accounted for the expected increases in capability, or is your analysis simply that the dollar value is greater than less capable platforms?

Not a proven platform
Neither were any of the platforms that you are now advocating when they were first introduced. 

still not in production
It is in production: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,22809.msg1044056.html#msg1044056 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,22809.msg1044056.html#msg1044056)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: skater021 on June 03, 2011, 00:26:22
Thanks for illustrating your ignorance of aerospace and reliability engineering (and if that's not the case, you are being disingenuous).  Single vs twin engine was a significant factor for norther flying operations in decades past when engines were less reliable - we can the reliability from a single engine of today compared to two engines of past generations.
By your opinion.  Have you accounted for the expected increases in capability, or is your analysis simply that the dollar value is greater than less capable platforms?
Neither were any of the platforms that you are now advocating when they were first introduced. 
It is in production: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,22809.msg1044056.html#msg1044056 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,22809.msg1044056.html#msg1044056)
Still over priced! your incredulous comments mean that insead of meanful debate your tactic is to demean someone with a valid question and statement. It only displays narrow vision. skater.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on June 03, 2011, 00:32:48
someone with a valid question and statement.

You may have had a valid question but you dont get to decide if your statement is valid. You made the decision to post, now you have to live with the response and be prepared for people to disagree with you.

Quote
It only displays narrow vision.

That may be but your own comments display a lack of basic knowledge of the subject. You should be careful before throwing stones......
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on June 03, 2011, 01:52:05
Still over priced! your incredulous comments mean that insead of meanful debate your tactic is to demean someone with a valid question and statement. It only displays narrow vision. skater.

Perhaps you could help us understand your statement better by providing us with your insight as to why the aircraft (for which there has been no contract signed, thus no confirmed pricing yet) is "overpriced"?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Infanteer on June 03, 2011, 02:25:48
He must have scanned the barcode with his I-phone.  Aren't those things handy!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MCG on June 03, 2011, 08:46:35
Still over priced!
By what measure?  You still have not explained your rational.  Are we just supposed to assume you are correct because you exude greatness as you sit and type at your keyboard?
   
your incredulous comments mean that ...
If there is error in my comments, please point it out.

... insead of mean[ing]ful debate your tactic is to demean someone with a valid question and statement.
I provided a counter point to each of your points.  In one case, I even invited you to provide more arguments to support your position so that discourse could continue … your first sentence shows you have chosen not to engage this opportunity.

It only displays narrow vision.
Pot, this is Kettle.  Radio Check, Over.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on June 03, 2011, 09:50:28
Single engine over priced. Not a proven platform why spend on a fighter still not in production? when we can get a twin engine fighter ie. the F18 superhornet lastest model at a 3rd of the price.

So what is the price of an F35?

So what is the price of the "single engine overpriced" you are so concerned about.

What is the price of a Super Hornet - a number not 1/3 the imaginary price of an F35?

Numbers please.

And sources.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: GR66 on June 03, 2011, 10:01:40
I'm actually in favour of the F-35 purchase (although frankly the cost bloat that seems to infect virtually every major US military hardware program scares me), but this one line from the article posted by G2G frustrates me...

An interesting piece by LGen (Ret'd) Ken Pennie, past Chief of the Air Staff and DCinC NORAD.

Frontline article - Strategy and the F-35 (http://www.frontline-canada.com/downloads/11_DEF3_F35_KenPennie.pdf)

...excerpt from article, full article at link above:

Quote
...Conclusion

Quote
...
A Canadian competition, however desirable by some, would be very problematic at this stage, especially since Canada has assessed that only the F-35 meets its mandatory requirements.
...

Canada doesn't have a clear and current Foreign Policy White Paper which lays out exactly what our Foreign Policy goals are how we plan to achieve them.  Therefore can't have a clear and current Defence White Paper which clearly defines our military needs.

Without that kind of clear guidance for the CF any statement of our aircraft's "mandatory requirements" will have to be pretty darned broad in order to cover EVERY potential role to which the aircraft MAY be called upon to fill. 

This being the case the F-35 makes perfect sense as the choice for the CF.  It is the most modern technology available and will have a long service life in line with what Canada typically demands from it's equipment.  It can fill a broad range of roles and will be totally interoperable with the fleets of our major allies. 

IF we were to have much clearer roles defined for how we intend to use our aircraft then we MIGHT have a different list of "mandatory requirements" to fill.  Even then we might still decide that the F-35 is the best choice of aircraft for the CF. 

We don't have a different list of mandatory requirements however so if the CF experts have decided that the F-35 is the only (or even best) aircraft that does what we currently need our fighters to do then we should accept their decision. 

If we as a nation decide that we're not willing to pay the price required to get what the experts say we need then we at least have to be honest and openly say that we're making the choice to select an inferior aircraft (to our stated needs) in order to save money (and be prepared to deal with the consequences of that choice).
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on June 03, 2011, 12:29:13
I profess to know very little of the ins and outs of being a jet fighter pilot and what is the best plane we're looking for.

But why is everyone an "expert"  when the subject of jets, tanks, ships, airplanes, etc comes up? Some of you know less than I do, but you insist on challenging fighter pilots and aircrew who know WTH they are talking about.
Skater, you might want to post your bona fides ie are you a pilot? An aircraft maintainer? Air Weapons?

Read what I wrote. Have a nice day.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: FoverF on June 03, 2011, 14:26:57
Canada doesn't have a clear and current Foreign Policy White Paper which lays out exactly what our Foreign Policy goals are how we plan to achieve them... which clearly defines our military needs.


I think that this in fact supports the notion of buying F-35s. With no clear directives from above, the CF needs to be prepared for a much broader scope of potential future operations. Including shooting wars against peer or near-peer opponents.

Personally, I think that the sheer amount of time we're anticipating having this aircraft in service dictates this anyways, regardless of whether or not there is a current policy paper in place. Too much can change in 50 years.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: ArmyRick on June 03, 2011, 15:49:56
Any new technology we buy into is going to be costly, period. The F35 is in its infancy/pre-natal stage, the technology still being refined. As far as cost, we are talking future top of the line fighter aircraft. This is not something thats going to be cheap.

It would be similar to me saying I want a really good 4 bedroom house with large backyard but I only have 50,000 to spend. I would be laughed out of the agent's office.

 You want quality and performance, its going to cost. IMO we need quality and performance.

As Jim said, unless your a fighter pilot/aircraft engineer/ something of a GENUINE expert on aircraft, keep in mind who opinions matter.

Here is another thought. How much money did we spend developing the LAVIII? I will bet it was a fair chunk of change and it certainly has performed very well for us and gave rise to the Stryker family of vehicles.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 03, 2011, 16:14:14
... regardless of whether or not there is a current policy paper in place. Too much can change in 50 years.

Lets think back a bit: 1987:Mulroney's White Paper on Defence: Extreme cold war scenario - 1989: Fall on the Berlin Wall: White Paper obsolete.

Having a policy in place NOW is not a proper military planning basis in view of the length of time over which military equipment and results panning from the policy must remain effective. The only valid military purchasing policy is buy what is most current and cutting edge, every time.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on June 03, 2011, 16:42:53
Lets think back a bit: 1987:Mulroney's White Paper on Defence: Extreme cold war scenario - 1989: Fall on the Berlin Wall: White Paper obsolete.

Having a policy in place NOW is not a proper military planning basis in view of the length of time over which military equipment and results panning from the policy must remain effective. The only valid military purchasing policy is buy what is most current and cutting edge, every time.

YES ! 

Well said.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on June 04, 2011, 11:32:24
Just a minor point: The 1987 White Paper promises were gutted before the Berlin Wall was knocked down.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on June 17, 2011, 00:08:04
Production runs have started.

I missed this one.......

"production runs" is misleading. The aircraft that were delivered  are Low-Rate Initial Production Lot 1 aircraft. These are not final configuration aircraft. The aircrafts have joined the testing and evaluation that must be completed before LRIP can be ceased and full production begins. As i have posted before, LRIP status limits the number of aircraft that can be manufactured.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on June 19, 2011, 13:52:44
F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts (http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/F-35-Fast-Facts-June-6-2011.pdf)

Cites that 2 production aircraft have been delivered to Edwards AFB while an additional 6 have been delivered for flight testing.

Also of interest in the link above:

2010 Estimated Average Unit Recurring Flyaway Cost

F-35A CTOL $65 million

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on June 19, 2011, 14:00:14


Cites that 2 production aircraft have been delivered to Edwards AFB while an additional 6 have been delivered for flight testing.



These are AF-6 (BuNo 07-0744) and AF-7 (BuNo 07-0745) and are both LRIP Lot 1 aircraft.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on June 19, 2011, 15:24:42
I missed this one.......

"production runs" is misleading. The aircraft that were delivered  are Low-Rate Initial Production Lot 1 aircraft. These are not final configuration aircraft. The aircrafts have joined the testing and evaluation that must be completed before LRIP can be ceased and full production begins. As i have posted before, LRIP status limits the number of aircraft that can be manufactured.

Perhaps, but true.

These LRIP aircraft are/will become the property of USAF/USM/USMC as they are delivered.  They are/will be in DoD inventory, will be flown in Squadron service and will go into combat if required.

They are production aircraft as much as aircraft #1000 to come off the line.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on June 20, 2011, 19:43:21
WOW, new Lockheed Martin F-35 website:

 http://www.f35.com/
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: GAP on July 06, 2011, 18:08:49
They just don't give up.....

Report: F-35 is an ‘expensive mistake’ for Canada
Article Link (http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/07/06/report-f-35-is-an-expensive-mistake-for-canada/)
By Philip Ewing Wednesday, July 6th, 2011 Posted in International

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs doesn’t pull any punches in a new report about Canada’s membership in the F-35 club: It doesn’t belong, the study concludes.

In addition to the many questions about how much the CF-35 will ultimately cost — just like Washington, Ottawa has competing sets of numbers that come from different sides of the political spectrum — the Council’s study argues that Canada should wave off because it just doesn’t need the kind of capability the F-35 offers.

The Lightning II, as Buzz readers know, is designed to drop the first ordnance of the war or have the first dogfight — that’s why it needs to be stealthy, agile, networked, etc. But let’s be honest, the Council’s report says: Canada shouldn’t be committing itself to an aircraft based on this kind of strategy: It’s a bad idea in principle and practically speaking, Canada doesn’t have the firepower to follow through on the kinds of major campaigns for which the U.S. designed this aircraft. “The F-35 is unsuitable for Canadian military operations and marks an unfortunate shift in Canadian foreign policy towards single-mindedly backing the U.S. military,” wrote the Council’s lead author.

He concludes:

    Canada’s foreign policy should not be tied closely to that of the U.S., especially when conducting Canadian military operations. The goals and orientations of these two militaries are completely different. The F-35’s fundamental role is a day-one stealth bomber used to penetrate enemy air defense, which later secures air cover and provides the opportunity to bomb important military targets. Therefore, the F-35 purchase suggests that the Conservative government is willing to conduct further NATO operations in bombing or suppression of air defense. However, Canada lacks the capacity to follow through with this type of invasion or large-scale operation.

    The Canadian government should have instead used its resources to invest in areas that would benefit Canada overseas, such as the land forces. Steven Staples points out, “as the second largest country in the world, a significant portion of [Canada’s] military spending should be dedicated to disaster relief, search-and-rescue, and constabulary patrols along [Canada’s] three coasts. [Canada’s] potential military contribution to expeditionary missions will be neither necessary nor sufficient for the success of operations involving significant use of force.”

    With the current budget deficit and Canada’s historical role in peacekeeping missions, the Canadian Forces should focus on missions sanctioned by the United Nations. Canada could make a greater contribution to UN missions by having the Canadian Forces specialize in general use capabilities. General specialization will allow Canada to offer greater support for humanitarian missions – an option that investing in concepts such as “first-strike capabilities” renders impossible. However, even though these UN missions are very important, Canada has dramatically reduced its contributions to UN operations since 1997, partly because of the NATO-led mission in Bosnia. By 2005, Canada committed only 83 military personnel to UN peacekeeping missions, in comparison 500 Canadian soldiers participated in stabilizing Haiti from 1993 to 1996. Once again, Staples recognizes that Canada stopped operating strategic bombers after the end of the Second World War, and retired the aircraft carrier HMCS Bonadventure forty years ago. Until recently, previous administrations reoriented the Canadian Forces to conduct smaller peace-keeping operations. Its critics say that the F-35 purchase marks a grave mistake by the Conservatives, as Canada does not need the F-35 in any shape or capacity in its inventory. Instead, Canada’s scarce resources should be invested in existing sectors of their armed forces.

The is only the latest shot fired in what has been a long, public battle over the CF-35, but at the moment, the jet’s backers in Ottawa appear to have the upper hand. There’s every indication that despite the long controversy, Canada will keep its membership in the F-35 club and move forward with its planned buy of 65.
end
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: trampbike on July 06, 2011, 21:49:38
Quote
Steven Staples points out, “as the second largest country in the world, a significant portion of [Canada’s] military spending should be dedicated to disaster relief, search-and-rescue, and constabulary patrols along [Canada’s] three coasts.

Being the second largest country in the world implies that?
Is it me or it doesn't follow?  :facepalm:
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on July 06, 2011, 22:02:27
Canada’s historical role in peacekeeping missions,

Tired old line. Canada's history also includes world war 1, world war 2, the Korean war, the 91 Gulf war, The air war in Kosovo in 99, the war in Afghanistan and now, in Libya.

Quote
the Canadian Forces should focus on missions sanctioned by the United Nations.

We still are. Both missions in Afghanistan and Libya are directed by the UN.

Quote
General specialization

Let us think about this comment from an English language point of view.........

Quote
will allow Canada to offer greater support for humanitarian missions – an option that investing in concepts such as “first-strike capabilities” renders impossible.

Rubbish argument. A "first strike" fighter aircraft can do many things, just like a "second strike" fighter could. That fighter is designed to be able to handle "first strike" tasks doesn't mean thats all it can do.


Quote
Instead, Canada’s scarce resources should be invested in existing sectors of their armed forces.

Fighter aircraft are a "sector" of the armed forces and one that needs attention.


I'm not on the "supporter" side of the F-35 issue but i don't like BS arguments like this.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on July 18, 2011, 17:13:36
Quote
First F-35A JSF Arrives at Eglin AFB

EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla., July 14, 2011 - The first Lockheed Martin production model F-35 Lightning II to be assigned to the 33rd Fighter Wing arrived here today at 1:18 p.m. CDT after its more than 90-minute flight from Fort Worth, Texas. The aircraft, known as AF-9, will be used for activities in concert with training F-35 pilots and maintainers who begin coursework at the base's new F-35 Integrated Training Center this fall.

AF-9 is a conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) version of the 5th generation stealth fighter. Overall, the jet is the third production-model F-35 delivered to the U.S. Air Force, with the first two assigned to Edwards AFB, Calif.

"We're incredibly proud of our government/industry team whose steadfast dedication to this program led to the successful delivery of AF-9 today," said Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin vice president and F-35 program general manager. "The exceptional capabilities of this 5th generation fighter are now in the very capable hands of the men and women of the 33rd Fighter Wing who are ushering in a new era of F-35 training. We look forward to delivering our full complement of F-35s to the Emerald Coast in the months and years ahead."

AF-9 is the first aircraft delivered from Low Rate Initial Production lot two and the seventh F-35 delivered in program history to the Air Force. Over the lifetime of the program, a total of 59 F-35s will compose the fighter fleet at Eglin AFB.

The F-35A CTOL variant - designed to meet U.S. Air Force requirements - is also the primary export version of the Lightning II. The air forces of Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway and Israel will employ the F-35A.

Located at Eglin AFB, the fully-integrated F-35 pilot-and-maintenance training center includes pilot and maintenance training equipment, support, systems and facilities for all three aircraft variants. The center will be home to a full spectrum of the latest courseware, electronic classrooms, simulators and flight events ensuring superior training for the next generation of pilots and maintainers.

http://www.f35.com/news-events/
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: No one on July 19, 2011, 09:26:10
Quote
The F-35A CTOL variant - designed to meet U.S. Air Force requirements - is also the primary export version of the Lightning II. The air forces of Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Norway and Israel will employ the F-35A.


Has this been decided? I understand the desire for an internal gun, but I was under the impression that the more robust landing gear, tail hook, and folding wings were advantageous for how we operate our fighter fleet, and I believe there's an advantage in range as well, based on both more fuel and larger wing area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#Variants

Granted, I'm very uneducated on the finer points of fighter ops, I'd love to hear from anyone in the Fast Air community.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on July 19, 2011, 11:55:10
Has this been decided? I understand the desire for an internal gun, but I was under the impression that the more robust landing gear, tail hook, and folding wings were advantageous for how we operate our fighter fleet, and I believe there's an advantage in range as well, based on both more fuel and larger wing area.

Not entirely sure that I understand your question, so if my answer is inaccurate please let me know.

The F-35A variant is the one being pursued by the Government at this time.  The plane will come armed with a GAU-12 Equalizer 25 mm cannon and has planned add ons which include the addition of a drag chute which will be situated at the rear of the aircraft between the tail fins as well as a refuelling probe at the nose of the aircraft similar to that being placed on the B/C variants.

According to data released regarding performance standards, the A model has the same wing area (42.7m square) as that of the B which is less than that of the C model (62.1m square).  The A model has a greater internal fuel capacity (8,390kg vs. the 6,030kg of the B model) and as a result it also has both a greater range (2,220km vs. 1,670km) and a greater combat radius based on internal fuel (1,090km vs. 833km) respectively.

Neither variant (A/B) has the size/range/combat radius of the C version which is being designed specifically for US carrier operations.  As well, the notion that folding wings are advantageous for how we operate our fighter fleet isn't really a consideration given that we do not perform carrier based operations where wing folding is necessary to ensure maximum space utilisation in a finite area.

Hope that helps...??
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on July 21, 2011, 16:06:23
Although not related to our eventual purchase, it will be interesting to see what will come of this competition. 

Quote
Four candidates short-listed in Korea's stealth jet project

2011-07-20 21:16

Korea will acquire a new generation of stealth fighter jets from overseas to better counter North Korean provocations, the local defense procurement agency said Wednesday.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said it has narrowed down the candidates to four fighters: the F-15SE Silent Eagle by Boeing, F-35 Lightning II by Lockheed Martin, Eurofighter Typhoon by the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) and the T-50 PAK-FA by Russian firm Sukhoi.

According to DAPA, the project to acquire 60 fifth-generation stealth fighters is worth 8.29 trillion won ($7.86 billion).

Korea is expected to choose the winner in October next year.

"We've eased the criteria for operational capabilities to ensure more jets could enter the bidding," the agency said in a statement. "We will set up strategies that will allow for the transfer of core technology and that will encourage competition."

DAPA said the new generation of fighters will better prepare Korea against North Korea's "asymmetric capabilities" and will enhance the South's deterrence against surprise air attacks.

The agency said Seoul will also acquire AH-X attack helicopters from overseas. The AH-1W SuperCobra by Bell and AH-64D Block III by Boeing, both American choppers, will compete with the EC-665 Tiger by Eurocopter of France and the T-129 by Turkey.

This project, worth 1.84 trillion won, will see Korea purchase 36 attack helicopters. The winner of the bid will also be announced in October next year. (Yonhap News)

http://www.koreaherald.com/national/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20110720000961
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on July 21, 2011, 16:16:41
Low Rate Initial Production lot two

 :boring:

More aircraft that will either have to a) be retired early on or b) extensively modified after testing is complete as they will not likely meet the specs of the operational, full-production design.

it will be interesting to see what will come of this competition. 

Interesting indeed as they are considering PAK-FA. Both Koreas facing each other, both flying Russian designs ?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on July 21, 2011, 17:02:50
More aircraft that will either have to a) be retired early on or b) extensively modified after testing is complete as they will not likely meet the specs of the operational, full-production design.

As part of its role is for maintenance training purposes, I can foresee this plane being retired after it's flight hours are maxed and then still used to train classes of maintainers on the airframe issues they may encounter during the plane's life.

Interesting indeed as they are considering PAK-FA. Both Koreas facing each other, both flying Russian designs?

That'd be interesting...although I think this will come down to the SE and the JSF if their current fleet is any indication of a purchasing trend.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: FoverF on July 23, 2011, 08:20:15
I think this will come down to the SE and the JSF if their current fleet is any indication of a purchasing trend.

If I'm not mistaken (which I probably am), I think that South Korea operates some Russian military gear, like BMP-3s and T-90s. I think they also have some involvement in the S400 SAM  program, and a few other Russian missile projects. Nothing Earth-shattering, but there is some recent history there.

Naturally, I agree with your statement here, I'm just pointing out that there are probably more Russian-South Korean defence ties these days than many people might otherwise expect.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Don2wing on July 27, 2011, 12:48:29
UPDATE 1-Australia may reconsider F-35 order after cost blowout, delays
 Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:38pm EDT


CANBERRA, July 27 (Reuters) - Australia may reconsider a A$16 billion ($17.5 billion) plan to buy 100 of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Joint Strike Fighters because of delivery delays and cost overruns, the government said on Wednesday.

Repeated delays and ballooning costs in the F-35 programme are now starting to rub against already generous delivery and cost limits set by the government and military planners, Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith said.

"We are running close up to those schedules, particularly on delivery. So I've made the point very clear that we are now monitoring very closely the delivery timetable and we are also monitoring very closely the cost," Smith told Australian radio after meeting defence officials in Washington.

Australia, which is helping develop the F-35, has committed to buying 14 of the stealth aircraft and had initially planned for first deliveries in 2011. That has now been pushed back to 2014 and even that date may be in jeopardy.

Australia recently took delivery of the first of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornet multi-role fighter aircraft manufactured by Boeing to replace ageing strike bombers. Smith said Canberra could consider buying more of these in place of the F-35.

"That's an obvious option. But we need to take this step by step. It's early days," he said. "We need to continue to monitor the situation very carefully and closely."

Smith said he had raised his concerns with U.S. Vice Admiral David Venlet, executive officer for the F-35 Lightning II Program, and would make decisions after the U.S. completed an extensive risk assessment on the troubled project.

Australia's Defence Ministry had voiced concerns this year that further delays could create a hole in defences, and media reports at the time indicated the government was looking for alternatives.

Australia has already begun a multi-billion-dollar upgrade of its military that includes new air defence destroyers, two large amphibious assault ships, helicopters, tanks, long-range cruise missiles and 12 new long-range missile submarines costing $25 billion.

Lockheed is developing three F-35 versions for the United States and eight international partners at a projected cost of more than $382 billion for 2,443 aircraft over the next two decades. It is the most expensive U.S. arms purchase.

The cost of each aircraft has rocketed from $69 million to $103 million apiece, with design and development flaws plaguing planners and worrying lawmakers. (Reporting by Rob Taylor in CANBERRA and Balazs Koranyi in SYDNEY; Editing by Mark Bendeich)

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on July 31, 2011, 01:58:30
:boring:

More aircraft that will either have to a) be retired early on or b) extensively modified after testing is complete as they will not likely meet the specs of the operational, full-production design.

Hey...they all needed to be used in some way shape or form...take the Hornet below.

It turns out that this particular Hornet -- serial 160778 -- was the FOURTH production F-18 ever built, identified as being an F/A-18A-2-MC.S  It was sent to the Canadian Forces for structural tests and has never been flown by the Canadian Forces.  It currently resides at the Non Destructive Testing Branch of ATESS at 8 Wing CFB Trenton.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Jammer on August 01, 2011, 16:13:36
Given the current state of the US DoD and the anticipated cut of 350 Billion dollars over the next ten years is it realistic that the procurement F-35 could be substantially reduced of chopped outright?

Where would this leave Canada in terms of seeking a replacement for the CF-18?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on August 01, 2011, 20:03:01
take the Hornet below.



I've already see your post on airshowbuzz............. :P
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on August 02, 2011, 10:51:42
I've already see your post on airshowbuzz............. :P

hehe

Jammer,

Interesting point but in my humble opinion I just don't see the Republicans downsizing their country's military capacity.  In all likelihood they will decimate what little social services they currently have along with the size of government before considering taking aim at their forces.

That being said, there are options for the United States to save money by streamlining operations within their Forces.  Being an air show fan myself, I would expect the number of demo teams to be cut along with the number of appearances they display at through the year as a start. 

Should certain F-35 capabilities be proven successful in a reasonable timeframe, say within the next couple of years, then the US Navy fleet which contains about 150 Hornets and 142 Harriers could be reduced in number by retiring some of the older hour airframes and replacing them with the JSF's.  The same could also be achieved in ANG units currently flying older block F-16's set to replaced when sufficient numbers of F-35's are produced.

I believe that the big number for Canada is ensuring that we pay the $9 billion for 65 aircraft as it's outlined in the documents put forth. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Jammer on August 02, 2011, 15:54:13
The GOP just signed off on a bill that will see massive cuts to the DoD budget over the next ten years. I suspect projects that are still in the prototype stage will be among the first to go...read f-35...The F-22 is likely to see a shortened life span given it's history of troubles, and the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey will cease production.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on August 02, 2011, 16:07:39
The GOP just signed off on a bill that will see massive cuts to the DoD budget over the next ten years. I suspect projects that are still in the prototype stage will be among the first to go...read f-35...The F-22 is likely to see a shortened life span given it's history of troubles, and the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey will cease production.

What did they agree on ?

Haven't checked in detail but it looks like in the total US budget, the max reduction is  $2.5t over ten years, or $250b per year.

How much of that will be DOD forced to eat?  Every time they cut a program, jobs go away so politicians will fight like crazy to keep their local boondoggles going regardless.

Here's the current DOD budget summary . . .

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD-7.pdf

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on August 02, 2011, 16:12:27
and the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey will cease production.

The V-22 is mature and has already proven its worth. Replacing the CH-46 needs to be done. I personaly do not see cuts of any significance to that program. The US Navy's carrier force is a more likely candidate to take a hit as is, IMHO, the decision to extend  DDG-51 production. The F-35 will probably make an easy target ( the B-model even more so) as will be the USAF next-gen bomber hopes.I can see the B-1 program being summed up in short order and perhaps even retirement of the C-5 prematurely. Expect a round of new base closures and more ANG units to convert from fighters to UAVs as the traditional hand-me-downs from the regular USAF dries up completely.

IMHO, of course.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Jammer on August 02, 2011, 16:16:20
No details have emerged yet. The Senate Armed Services Commitee will have to approve cuts and reallocation of funds. No doubt there will be a lot of partisan fighting to come.

It's being said that a good deal of the reduction of funds will come largely from the drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq...but big ticket spenders such as the Navy and Air Force will certainly see major programs delayed or eliminated.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Jammer on August 02, 2011, 16:22:52
...which rolls into the second pert of my question.
Does anyone think DND has an alterantive plan to replace the CF-18 with another contender if the F-35 programme tanks.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on August 02, 2011, 16:25:09
...which rolls into the second pert of my question.
Does anyone think DND has an alterantive plan to replace the CF-18 with another contender if the F-35 programme tanks.

...All the ones we've rejected  ;D

The RAF would probably be very happy to turn over some of their Tranche 3 Typhoon commitments to us, just like they did with the Saudi Tranche 2s.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Jammer on August 02, 2011, 16:39:34
hmmmm...ponders the thought....nice touch.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on August 02, 2011, 16:48:00
hmmmm...ponders the thought....nice touch.

The first 24 Saudi aircraft were taken from the RAF's Tranche 2 production, and were supposed to have been replaced at the end of Tranche 2. They will now be accounted against the UK's Tranche 3A total, making it an effective reduction of 24 aircraft in the UK orders. They get to say they fullfilled their commitments without having to own or operate them. It could be argued that the RAF could do a similar deal to reduce its Tranche 3 commitments due to the cutbacks its facing.

Note that this would NOT mean used British kit........
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on August 02, 2011, 16:57:49
...which rolls into the second pert of my question.
Does anyone think DND has an alterantive plan to replace the CF-18 with another contender if the F-35 programme tanks.

I think that the JSF program as a whole will still be viable even if the US doesn't order as many planes as they once believed they would. 

The contract, once arranged, would be through the manufacturer and, seeing as most of the R&D has already been completed and paid for thanks to Tier 1 partners in the program it would still leave us with a plane which has LO characteristics for about the same price as any aircraft that are in the market today.

I still like my idea though...2 platform system is the best way to go...hehe
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on August 02, 2011, 17:05:34


The contract, once arranged, would be through the manufacturer

IIRC, the F-35 deals are being done through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) and not direct commercial sales.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: dapaterson on August 02, 2011, 17:06:57
... seeing as most of the R&D has already been completed and paid for thanks to Tier 1 partners in the program ...

Not at all the case.  The system software is running significantly behind schedule, according to the GAO.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5978504

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on August 02, 2011, 17:28:37
Not at all the case.  The system software is running significantly behind schedule, according to the GAO.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5978504

The system software is essentially done - what is late is the missions specific software.

No worries . . .  they are getting there.  Good things take time.  Great things take more time.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 02, 2011, 20:17:04
then the US Navy fleet which contains about 150 Hornets and 142 Harriers could be ...

Just a small point of information: The US Navy operates no Harriers at all. The US Marines do. In turn, the whole fleet is Navy - the Marines do not operate any ships. They are both (US Navy and Marines Corps) part of the Department of the Navy, with a single Secretary of the Navy over them - but are in fact separate services.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on August 02, 2011, 20:39:04
Just a small point of information: The US Navy operates no Harriers at all. The US Marines do. In turn, the whole fleet is Navy - the Marines do not operate any ships. They are both (US Navy and Marines Corps) part of the Department of the Navy, with a single Secretary of the Navy over them - but are in fact separate services.

What was the old saying, "The Marines are a projectile fired by the Navy" ?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: S.M.A. on August 03, 2011, 17:51:58
link (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7289794&c=AME&s=AIR)

Quote
F-35s Grounded After Power Package Fails

By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 3 Aug 2011 16:19       All 20 U.S. F-35 Lightning IIs have been grounded following a failure of the aircraft's integrated power package (IPP).

The incident took place at about 8:30 a.m. Aug. 2 at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., during a ground maintenance run of aircraft AF-4, the fourth conventional takeoff and landing version of the triservice Joint Strike Fighter. Following the failure of the IPP - which combines the functions performed by an auxiliary power unit, emergency power system and environmental controls - the crew shut down the aircraft as per standard operating procedures, according to a press release by the JSF program office.


Government and contractor teams are reviewing the incident to find out what caused the IPP to fail. The program office suspended flight operations as "the prudent action to take at this time until the F-35 engineering, technical and system safety teams fully understand the cause of the incident," according to the statement.

This is the second time the F-35 has been grounded this year due to electrical problems. In March, the F-35 fleet was briefly grounded after the same aircraft experienced a dual generator failure that was traced to faulty maintenance procedures.

The Navy's F-35C was also grounded for six days in June due to a software problem with the wing-fold mechanism that might have caused the flight control surfaces to freeze in flight. The aircraft returned to flight June 23.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 03, 2011, 18:07:53
What was the old saying, "The Marines are a projectile fired by the Navy" ?
Or in the words of Lt. Kendrick (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000662/), "Every time (we Marines have) gotta go someplace and fight, you fellas always give us a ride."
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on August 17, 2011, 13:22:15
Cold feet south o' the equator?
Quote
Australia will decide in 2012 whether to continue with a $16.8 billion purchase of 100 of Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters or seek an alternative amid continuing delivery delays and cost overruns, the government said on Wednesday.

Repeated delays and ballooning costs in the F-35 programme were bumping against delivery and cost limits set by the government and military planners, Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith told parliament.

"I will not allow and the government will not allow a gap in the capability of our air combat capability," Smith said, pointing to 2013 as the last possible decision deadline given a looming air combat gap in the country's military.

"I'm not proposing to wait until the last minute," he said. "I'm proposing to recommend to the government that we make that decision next year."

Australia, which is helping develop the F-35, has committed to buying 14 of the stealth aircraft and had initially planned for first deliveries in 2011. That has now been pushed back to 2014 and even that date may be in jeopardy ....
Source:  Reuters, 17 Aug 11 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/17/australia-f-idUSL3E7JH0GG20110817)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: RDBZ on August 20, 2011, 03:01:35
Cold feet south o' the equator?Source:  Reuters, 17 Aug 11 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/17/australia-f-idUSL3E7JH0GG20110817)

On one hand the ADF and government here is concerned about the implications of further delays in the F-35.  The F-18A/B fleet is rapidly running out of airframe hours.

But this is also part political.  The current Labor-Green government badly needs to demonstrate that it is serious about, and can effectively deal with issues that are close to the heart of middle Australia.  One of those issues is defence.  If it can't do this, it will in all likelihood face a landslide loss at the next election.

I suspect the only real variable is whether another batch of F-18Fs will be purchased or leased to deal with delays in F-35 deliveries.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Colin P on August 23, 2011, 15:05:31
The Aussies decision to go with a dual fleet of Super Hornets and F-35's is starting to look like a much better idea. Also they won't be caught out completely if one fleet gets grounded for technical reasons that take a significant fix.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on August 30, 2011, 12:40:12
Quote
All F-35s cleared for flying

dd 25 Aug 2011

"The Pentagon's F-35 Joint Program Office today cleared the remain eight F-35 jets to resume testing and training flights in the wake of the grounding of all 20 jets three weeks ago following the failure of the integrated power package (IPP) on one of the test jets at Edwards Air Force Base.

The 12 developmental test jets were allowed to resume flights last week since they are heavily intstrumented and the conditions of the IPPs could be monitored. The other eight aircraft, all from the first two lots of low-rate initial production planes (LRIP 1 and 2, 14 planes total) remained grounded until Thursday's release.

Lockheed issued the following statement:

'The JPO has authorized F-35 production jets to fly again. They are now flying the same profiles they were prior to the precautionary suspension of operations. This includes acceptance flights at Ft Worth and ferry flights to Eglin. Government and contractor engineering teams determined the program could resume production flight operations while the IPP investigation continues. This assessment was made after reviewing data from ground and flight tests. This data showed, with revised emergency procedures governing IPP failures in place, the aircraft can be flown safely.'

For those who might be following the program very closely, Lockheed provided the following details on what jets are where:

- Six planes are at Edwards: Developmental test jets AF-1 through AF-4 and production jets AF-6 and AF-7, which are being used in developmental testing.

- Eight developmental test planes are at Patuxent River: Marine short-takeoff-vertical-landing models BF-1 through BF-5 and carrier variants CF-1 through CF-3.

- Two low-rate production planes, AF-8 and AF-9, are now at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida preparing for pilot training.

- Four additional A models, AF-10 through AF-13, are in Fort Worth and have all been flown but have not yet been turned over to the military, although two have been formally "delivered."

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2011/08/all-f-35s-cleared-for-flying.html
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on August 30, 2011, 12:42:01
The Aussies decision to go with a dual fleet of Super Hornets and F-35's is starting to look like a much better idea. Also they won't be caught out completely if one fleet gets grounded for technical reasons that take a significant fix.

Shhhh...hehe

Some would like a split fleet (myself included) but it would cost a crapload more money in support and logistics amongst other things...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: kj_gully on August 30, 2011, 18:34:39
does anyone else think it might not be a great idea to fly single engine plane near migratory bird nesting area (arctic)? Sar Response is a long way from resolute....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on September 01, 2011, 09:02:26
This is a guess regarding intercept flights, so take it for what it's worth.

From what I gather arctic flights are usually of the intercept variety and Bears really don't fly all that low, unless they're big, white, and not really cuddly.

You speak of migratory bird routes - as a grad of a school of environmental and natural resource sciences (Fleming College in Lindsay, ON) I can tell you that the birds which exist in Canada's arctic generally stay in the arctic all year long with a few exceptions which migrate down to the great lakes area of Ontario.  The largest migratory birds are snow geese, however, you are looking at those flying through SK/MB in August/September and they really don't pose a threat to a single engine aircraft stationed up in Cold Lake or Bagotville which deploy to FOB's further to the north.

Finally, any birds which actually nest in places north of Resolute Bay actually migrate south into Europe and spend their winters in Spain, Italy, Africa, et cetera - NOT in south America.

Cheers, and have a nice day.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on September 01, 2011, 09:45:40


You speak of migratory bird routes - as a grad of a school of environmental and natural resource sciences (Fleming College in Lindsay, ON) I can tell you that the birds which exist in Canada's arctic generally stay in the arctic all year long with a few exceptions which migrate down to the great lakes area of Ontario. 

As someone who has lived in the Arctic for about five years and traveled all over it, it is a rare site to see birds in winter while the place is infested with migratory birds in summer.  Not sure who teaches what at Fleming College but I'd suggest they should go live there and test what they teach against reality.


Me: Will the Geese return soon?
Johnny May:  Imaha, imaha oupat, imaha oupasat.

Inuk humor is dry and witty  ;D
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on September 01, 2011, 10:39:16
As someone who has lived in the Arctic for about five years and traveled all over it, it is a rare site to see birds in winter while the place is infested with migratory birds in summer.  Not sure who teaches what at Fleming College but I'd suggest they should go live there and test what they teach against reality.


Me: Will the Geese return soon?
Johnny May:  Imaha, imaha oupat, imaha oupasat.

Inuk humor is dry and witty  ;D

I guess it really comes down to what we classify as Arctic...hehe  Smaller birds (shorebirds like red knots and other sandpiper types) start to migrate down from their nesting grounds as early as the end of July and into August.  Bigger birds (snowie owls, gyr and peregrine falcons, jaegers) migrate as far down as the great lakes on occasion however will often stay in relatively central Canadian regions in Manitoba, Alberta, et cetera.

Just wondering out loud if any of the fast movers on the board (or any other pilots with experience in the arctic) can advise how many bird strikes happen in a given year...something tells me the number is very, very low given the altitudes involved...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: lucciano-malke on September 04, 2011, 07:26:04
Marines in SC getting ready for new F-35 jets

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xairforces.net%2Fimages%2Fnews%2Flarge_news%2F020911_USMarines_F-35.jpg&hash=4899fd682b799e48651268ed05b005f1)The Marine Corps broke ground Thursday on a $70 million first installment toward a new era of F-35 jets at the air station in Beaufort.

Maj. Gen. Jon Davis, the commanding general for the 2nd Marine Air Wing, and Col. Brian Murtha, the Beaufort base's commanding officer, helped local officials turn over the first shovels of dirt for the ceremony.

"We have to be prepared for the jets and for everyone to come by Jan. 1, 2014," said Marine Corps spokeswoman 1st Lt. Sharon Hyland. "We have a lot to do before they arrive and this is the first phase of that work."

The Navy announced late last year that it intended to place three new active duty F-35 squadrons and two pilot training squadrons at the air station for a total of 88 aircraft.

The stealthy aircraft are designed to be the next generation of fighters for the Marines, Navy and Air Force and will replace the F-18 Hornets flown out of Beaufort.

The Marine version will be able to take off and land vertically and the new construction at the base will include a vertical lift off pad for pilot training.

The work begun on Thursday includes a $37 million, 60,900-square-foot hangar.

It is designed for parking seven of the jets inside and 18 on a parking ramp under sunshades. The multi-story hangar includes a maintenance bay, shop and administrative offices, pilot briefing rooms and data network offices, Hyland said.

The $33 million pilot training and simulation center will support 78 pilots a year and includes classrooms, briefing rooms, flight simulators, equipment rooms and administrative offices. It is 101,000 square feet.

Construction will take about two years.

In all, there will be about $350 million in construction at the base as it prepares to house the new stealth fighters.

Hyland said security will have to be tighter for the stealth aircraft, which are designed to evade opponents' radars and electronic attacking devices.

Source: http://www.xairforces.net/newsd.asp?newsid=498&newst=8 (http://www.xairforces.net/newsd.asp?newsid=498&newst=8)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 04, 2011, 09:22:30
lucciano-malke - interesting news, but blue text on green is kinda hard to read.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on September 04, 2011, 15:34:26
lucciano-malke - interesting news, but blue text on green is kinda hard to read.
[/color]

Gee it read just fine on air-force.ca.  ;D
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on September 04, 2011, 17:45:43
[/color]

Gee it read just fine on air-force.ca.  ;D


I admit I had to laugh ... even as I cursed.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Colin P on September 06, 2011, 12:14:19
Apparently a wing spar problem has been identified that could shorten the wing life to 1800 hrs. Lockheed says they can fix it.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on September 12, 2011, 13:47:40
Some AUS media coverage coming out of Minister MacKay's visit there (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=3931):
Quote
Australia and Canada share a common concern that the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be delayed, possibly requiring acquisition of an expensive interim air combat capability.

To present a united front, Australia and Canada will now conduct top level talks on procurement and capability issues of mutual concern.

As well as JSF, that will also touch on submarines, with both Australia and Canada experiencing big problems on maintaining submarine capability.

Visiting Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Canada wasn't backing away from plans to acquire 65 JSF aircraft but shared all of the same concerns as Australia.

He said the good news was that the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant of JSF, to be acquired by both Canada and Australia, was progressing well, unlike the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) and carrier variants.

"We are purchasing them at a time when they will be in peak production around 2014-15. Our fleet of F-18 Hornets will have to be taken out of use in 2017," he told reporters.

"So there is a degree of urgency for us when it comes to this procurement being on time and being on cost."

Australia is considering acquiring up to 100 JSF aircraft but has so far contracted to buy just 14, with the first to be delivered in 2015. Decision time on the next tranche of 58 will come in 2012-13.

The JSF has faced steady criticism that it will be late and too expensive and won't deliver the promised level of capability.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith said he and Mr MacKay had agreed to conduct a regular strategic dialogue on shared procurement, acquisition, capability issues.

He said he was very concerned that delay in JSF meant it was rubbing up against the Australian schedule for retiring older F/A-18 Hornets around the end of the decade.

"I have always been of the view that this project will get up because the US is absolutely committed to the capability," he said.

"But the risk for Australia and other partners like Canada is on the delivery side, on the schedule side and also on the cost side." ....
Australian Associated Press, 12 Sept 11 (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/aust-canada-share-concern-about-jsf-delay-20110912-1k5g3.html)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on September 28, 2011, 13:33:45
Interesting . . .  over at the F-16.Net thread on the F-35 . . .  looks like the PR guys are working overtime to make the CF-35 procurement folks look like they don't know what they are doing.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-13143-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-75.html

Scroll the last entry and read on. 


OR     . . .    maybe it is some slick Canuck camo paint job like the fake cockpit on our Hornets??  ;D
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on September 29, 2011, 15:04:12
Meanwhile, work on making the Super Hornet more F-35 like entered the stealth design phase over the weekend at NAS Oceana.  Sadly, the best tests occurred on rainy days but the afterburners provided an easy target for any heat seeking ordnance.

(Not photoshopped - it really was this crappy at NAS Oceana last weekend)

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi460.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fqq326%2FWingsofFuryPhotography%2FMisc%2520Military%2FDSC_7408.jpg&hash=096a1d13931612c6db955578559bc1f2)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PMedMoe on September 29, 2011, 15:05:29
That is one cool shot!   :nod:
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on October 04, 2011, 06:32:52
Lockheed Martin still confirming $65M per plane

F-35 jet a bargain at $65M? (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/03/politics-f35-milewski.html)

It includes quotes from Senator McCain from back in May and makes no reference to the flight testing which has been underway during the summer months which show system progression.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on October 04, 2011, 08:36:45
Lockheed Martin still confirming $65M per plane

F-35 jet a bargain at $65M? (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/03/politics-f35-milewski.html)

It includes quotes from Senator McCain from back in May and makes no reference to the flight testing which has been underway during the summer months which show system progression.

Versus the company's estimates elsewhere, from a different VP (http://bit.ly/o5wSLY):
Quote
The F-35s in low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 4 are expected to exceed their contracted cost target, but fall below the negotiated ceiling price, says Tom Burbage, vice president of F-35 program integration for Lockheed Martin .... The LRIP 4 per-unit cost targets are as follows: $111.6 million (CAD$ 117.7M) for the conventional takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) version; $109.4 million (CAD$ 115.4M) for the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) aircraft; $142.9 (CAD$ 150.7M) for the first production carrier variant (CV) ....
Canadian dollar prices calculated via xe.com (http://xe.com) just before posting here.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on October 04, 2011, 08:56:59
Thanks for sharing that piece - tough to keep track of all the new ones coming out.

Quoted from the above:

Quote
Though final estimates are not yet in, Burbage says the company is already working to reduce the cost of these LRIP 4 units. “Everybody is actually feeling reasonably good about it,” he says. “It doesn’t mean that we aren’t going to have any overruns, but it is within the bounds of being manageable.”

Is it just me or has anyone, in any article written, noted that the cost per unit isn't what the government is focused on?  Instead it is the $9B for 65 airframes with the mods and spares included in that round figure?

Based on the above noted price of $111.6M per airframe, Canada's $9B could buy 80 aircraft without the modifications and spares, et cetera (not that we would) so I think it is very reasonable that our purchase will end up buying 65 at that price thus leaving us with roughly $1.8B to spend on the mods, training, and armament.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on October 04, 2011, 11:02:04
The F-35 Test Program continues to make remarkable progress and is now ahead of schedule. 

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/10/video-f-35b-completes-first-sh.html


The LIRP-4 aircraft are coming in at a lower than expected cost and the projections for the the price the government forecast look more and more accurate.

Certain parties will continue to slag the program. They will take every piece of news that can be twisted and distorted and twist and distort it. They will not explain that all aircraft development programs have issues and problems, that resolving them is normal and the process is designed to find shortcomings and fix them. 

But I digress.  Canada is in line to receive a remarkable aircraft of extraordinary capabilities that will serve our pilots, the RCAF and  Canada very, very well for 30-40 years.   In a world growing more unstable by the day, with economic, religious and historical grievances being torqued by opportunistic politicians and vested interest groups,  Canada needs to equip its Armed Forces with top of the line equipment.  We have started to do so - acquiring C-17's, Leo2's, M-777's are all steps in the right direction. So is the F-35.  The Navy needs to be re-built next and we'll see what happens in the near future with the announcements about the national shipbuilding program. 

Fingers crossed.

It will be a great day when the first CF-35A is in service. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Larkvall on October 04, 2011, 11:08:47


It will be a great day when the first CF-35A is in service.

My gut still tells me we are going to get screwed on this one.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on October 04, 2011, 11:37:18
My gut still tells me we are going to get screwed on this one.
Glad to be wrong, and I'm far from a tech SME, but that's my gut so far, too.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on October 04, 2011, 12:02:26
I come down on Haletown's side of the argument.

Every technical project goes through its development phase - often called commissioning when you are building one-offs.  I have never yet seen a plant work as intended on the day it is commissioned.  The commissioning effort is intended to ensure the plant (or aircraft) is brought up to the contracted standard.

I believe that in the past the F35 would have been "commissioned" with a larger number of "prototype" aircraft that would never make it into squadron service.  Those costs would have been "lost" in the sense that they resulted in no "deliverables".  Deliverables being things that the silly buggers in the accounting department can count (and weigh).  Ideas, concepts, solutions and other engineering artifacts have no value because they can't be weighed.....but I digress.  In the F35 case almost every "prototype" is being salvaged and modified to the current standard and will eventually enter squadron service.

The Spitfire was fielded in over 24 variants.  If the F35 were fielded in the manner the Spitfire was we would already have aircraft flying but in a dozen or so variants with pilots cursing some and singing the praises of others while the mechanics regretted that their mothers' bore them.

This project is progressing as all projects do, to the consternation of those that believe that life can be defined by process.  A flyable aircraft at a reasonable cost will result..... If only because Lockheed wants the spare parts business for the next 100 years.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on October 04, 2011, 13:12:12
.... I believe that in the past the F35 would have been "commissioned" with a larger number of "prototype" aircraft that would never make it into squadron service.  Those costs would have been "lost" in the sense that they resulted in no "deliverables".  Deliverables being things that the silly buggers in the accounting department can count (and weigh).  Ideas, concepts, solutions and other engineering artifacts have no value because they can't be weighed.....but I digress.  In the F35 case almost every "prototype" is being salvaged and modified to the current standard and will eventually enter squadron service.

The Spitfire was fielded in over 24 variants.  If the F35 were fielded in the manner the Spitfire was we would already have aircraft flying but in a dozen or so variants with pilots cursing some and singing the praises of others while the mechanics regretted that their mothers' bore them ....
Never heard it put quite like that before - thanks.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Larkvall on October 04, 2011, 13:20:36
My biggest concern with this program is the US's looming deficit/budget crisis. If they start cutting back on the number of planes the cost is going will go up.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on October 04, 2011, 16:55:26
Speaking of development difficulties . . .  guess the airplane . . .


A static wing test wing failed 22% below requirements – both wings were totally destroyed. 
In current dollars it cost about $250 million to totally redesign the wing.
The aircraft  project was many years late and far over budget. Congress tried repeatedly to kill it.
The LRIP aircraft did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload and range specifications.
There were technical problems with mission software and landing gear.
A  GAO report revealed that while the original budget was $X billion for 210 aircraft, the 120 aircraft already ordered at that point had already cost almost $X billion, almost doubling the original unit cost.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: trampbike on October 04, 2011, 17:07:52
Speaking of development difficulties . . .  guess the airplane . . .

I'm going for... the F-18!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on October 04, 2011, 17:32:17
I'm going for... the F-18!

No . . . but it is an aircraft that has been or is in service with the CAF/RCAF
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Container on October 04, 2011, 17:36:13
Globemaster?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 04, 2011, 17:49:12
Globemaster?

:+1:
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on October 04, 2011, 17:51:42
Globemaster?



BINGO !!  The CC-177 it is.

So when you read all the F-35 bad press and hear all the fear mongering from critics and opposition members, remember that vested interests are at play. 

Crap happens when you build complex technological systems.  It all doesn't go right the first time out of the box.  And yet the CC-177 is a superb aircraft and a great addition to the RCAF.

So will the F-35 be a great addition to the RCAF.


Now if they could just fix the pictures at http://f-35.ca/ . . .  they have the gun blister on the correct/ port side now but they have left off the "Canada" part below the cockpit glass.

Sooner or later they'll get it right 8)



Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on October 05, 2011, 12:06:53
..... in the House of Commons (http://bit.ly/nM7wvc) (the Minister, in response to an NDP question in the House) .....
Quote
These aircraft, as the House will know, will replace our aging CF-18 fleet of fighter jets. These aircraft, like other aircraft, have served our country extremely well. They are used in Libya today. They have been used in previous missions, but that they aging. As a matter of course we are taking the responsible step of following a procurement process that has been in place for a significant period of time in which a number of countries are participating …. We committed $9 billion for the replacement of the CF-18. In fact, it not only includes the cost of the aircraft, this will include: spares, weapons systems, infrastructure and training simulators as well as the contingency associated with this important procurement. We are purchasing the most cost-effective variant at the prime of peak production when the costs will be at their lowest. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has admitted to that. Why are the NDP members constantly against getting the best equipment for the best forces in the world?

..... and on TV (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/10/04/pol-fantino-f-35s.html) (this time, the Associate Minister of Defence on the price and costs):
Quote
An overall $9 billion cost estimate is more honest than relying on individual plane costs, says the minister handling the purchase of Canada’s new fighter jets. Despite a promise by manufacturer Lockheed Martin that Canada will get its F-35 fighter jets at a cost of $65 million each, Julian Fantino, Associate Minister of National Defence, says the government’s overall $9 billion estimate is the more honest number. The cost of the F-35 depends on the number of planes ordered by other countries, as well as on how early Canada wants to get its order. The manufacturing cost goes down as more planes come off the assembly line, with Canada expecting the U.S. to absorb the bulk of the F-35′s development costs. “There are just so many variables, and that’s why I think the more honest, ethical response to all these issues is the $9 billion figure, which in fact will be the ceiling that Canada will be investing in these particular aircraft,” Fantino told Evan Solomon, host of CBC’s Power & Politics ….
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on October 05, 2011, 12:34:39
So it looks like what they're saying is that the program cost is capped at $9 billion. If the F-35 follows the C-17 cost near-doubling indication Haletown posted, that may mean we won't get 65...more like 40 or so.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on October 05, 2011, 13:04:24
The media could quite easily ressurrect articles that they wrote during the F18 test and acquisition programme, and merely change dates, manufacturer's name, and aircraft designation. The criticisms were much the same.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on October 06, 2011, 08:25:45
.... in the House of Commons during yesterday's Question Period (http://tinyurl.com/hansard-qp-15-oct-f35):
Quote
Mr. Speaker, all reasonable people agree that Canada needs aircraft in order to defend Canadian sovereignty. The current CF-18s must be replaced and our budget for the purchase of F-35s remains on track .... Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. We will ensure that our men and women in uniform have the best equipment to do the job they are required to do safely. As responsible citizens, responsible politicians and responsible government, we owe them no less .... Our budget for the F-35s remains on track. This includes not only the aircraft but also infrastructure, parts, training, simulators, and so forth. It is the only machine that is going to provide us the kind of safety, security and sovereignty in our country that Canada requires at this time and in the future .... the F-35 aircraft is the one item that is absolutely critical and helps to ensure that we will maintain our sovereignty well into the future. It includes not only the aircraft; it includes other components for years to come in the future, enabling Canada to be competitive and coordinated with our partners in NATO and the UN missions.
Transcript of full F-35 Q&A exchange attached if link doesn't work.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on October 06, 2011, 08:53:00
Most notable part of the transcript came from Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP):

Quote
Six months ago, the government was talking about a $16 billion contract. This week, the government came up with a figure of $9 billion.

Shows just how far behind the ball the Opposition is when it comes to doing their own research on the matter as the $9B was outlined over a year ago in the breakdown of the purchase in documents released by the DND.

An interesting question was posed by Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):

Quote
That is why the $9 billion price tag bothers me so much. I do not see how we are going to buy
these planes and all the support equipment. I can see only two possible outcomes: we are going spend far more than $9 billion or we will have to buy less than 65 planes.

Which option will this government choose?

****TOOTING OF OWN HORN WITH LINK TO PERSONAL BLOG PIECE****

Which could possibly lend itself to a multi platform fleet as outlined in the blog piece noted below:

The Canadian Air Force Multiple Fast Air Platform Option (http://hotrampphotography.blogspot.com/2011/04/canadian-air-force-multiple-platform.html)

Will be interesting to see what direction this whole purchase will take over the next few years, and whether the Government will look at other options which see a secondary platform used conjointly with the F-35.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on October 06, 2011, 09:41:06


Will be interesting to see what direction this whole purchase will take over the next few years, and whether the Government will look at other options which see a secondary platform used conjointly with the F-35.

Yes !  At least one Squadron of F-35B's that is specially trained to operate with Army units  right at the edge of the battle space from limited and make-do runways such as roads etc.

Think of it as having an RCAF squadron that thinks and fights like Marine pilots . . . . 

Now that's a mixed fleet  :nod:
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on October 07, 2011, 11:41:39
Yes !  At least one Squadron of F-35B's that is specially trained to operate with Army units  right at the edge of the battle space from limited and make-do runways such as roads etc.

Think of it as having an RCAF squadron that thinks and fights like Marine pilots . . . . 

Now that's a mixed fleet  :nod:

Except we cannot afford (not enough pilots/airplanes) to have 1 dedicated squadron to the Army. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: dapaterson on October 07, 2011, 11:55:21
... and the B model will be more expensive to acquire and operate.  And the commonality of parts between models (particularly the Bs) is decreasing as development continues.  And the CF already suffers from too many small fleets (read the staff college paper by then Col Madower for some good insight into the issue).


Indeed, I'm heretical enough to suggest that the ideal Fixed Wing SAR platform would probably be a J-model Herc - since it would provide a larger fleet, meaning we can realize economies of scale in training and maintenance and provide greater flexibility in roles and in fleet management.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: GAP on October 17, 2011, 21:36:18
Ottawa likely to outsource training for stealth-fighter pilots
MURRAY BREWSTER OTTAWA— The Canadian Press   Monday, Oct. 17, 2011
Article Link (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-likely-to-outsource-training-for-stealth-fighter-pilots/article2203907/)
 
Canadian fighter pilots selected to fly the new F-35 could find themselves trained by either the Americans or a private contractor, according to internal air force documents.

The staggering multibillion-dollar purchase price means the Conservative government can only afford 65 of the multi-role stealth fighters.

The number – Canada currently has 79 aging CF-18s – stretches the ability of the air force to meet its commitments, says a series of briefings given to the air force chief last year.

Internal air force memos from the fall of 2010 lay out the “potential for NO pilot training in Canada.”

A separate briefing in April 2010 says the F-35 fleet size is “constrained” by cost and other factors.

The presentations, obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information, rank U.S. Air Force training or a contracted “fee-for-service” approach higher than doing it in Canada.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay has said 65 fighters are more than enough to meet Canada's needs, but the briefing raises questions about that because the air force must keep 36 fighters on standby for North American air defence and another dozen for training.

The spring 2010 assessment, written before the government announced its intention to purchase the jets, suggested the air force “optimize operational capability by not employing (a) portion of the fleet for training.”
More on link
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on October 24, 2011, 08:51:16
And another piece of doom and gloom...lol  You just have to wonder how much they pay people to come up with these headlines...and also whether they'll start referencing current testing records for people to show where the program actually stands.

Quote
New stealth fighters lack ability to communicate from Canada’s north

Murray Brewster
Ottawa— The Canadian Press
Published Sunday, Oct. 23, 2011 3:25PM EDT
Last updated Sunday, Oct. 23, 2011 9:01PM EDT

Canada's new multibillion-dollar stealth fighters are expected to arrive without the built-in capacity to communicate from the country's most northerly regions — a gap the air force is trying to close.

A series of briefings given to the country's top air force commander last year expressed concern that the F-35's radio and satellite communications gear may not be as capable as that of the current CF-18s, which recently went through an extensive modernization.

Military aircraft operating in the high Arctic rely almost exclusively on satellite communications, where a pilot's signal is beamed into space and bounced back down to a ground station.

The F-35 Lightning will eventually have the ability to communicate with satellites, but the software will not be available in the initial production run, said a senior Lockheed Martin official, who spoke on background.

It is expected to be added to the aircraft when production reaches its fourth phase in 2019, but that is not guaranteed because research is still underway.

“That hasn't all been nailed down yet,” said the official. “As you can imagine there are a lot of science projects going on, exploring what is the best . . . capability, what satellites will be available.”

Additionally, Canada's request to have the upgrade placed in the fourth phase will compete with software changes sought by other countries. Norway, for example, wants to use its own missiles on the F-35 rather than U.S.-made weapons.

Defending the Arctic is one of the Harper government's key justifications for buying the aircraft, which are estimated to cost between $16 and $30 billion, including long-term maintenance.

A Defence Department spokesman denied that the F-35's communications suite will be less effective than that of CF-18s, but acknowledged that so-called beyond-line-of-sight communications is a concern.

“Communications in the Arctic represents a specific challenge to all aircraft due to lack of satellite coverage in the north,” said Evan Koronewski in an email response. “Canada is working closely with the other partner nations to ensure Canadian operational requirements for communications in the Arctic are met.”

Air force planners recognized the problem last year and are “considering a back-up,” said an April 2010 briefing.

A study is looking at whether an external communications pod can be installed on the F-35.

Mr. Koronewski said it is one of “many options” being investigated, but wasn't able to discuss other potential solutions.

The sophisticated pods, which are carried by the CF-18s, were purchased as part of the $2.6-billion fleet upgrade, which began in 2000.

The briefing to the chief of air staff noted that installing such pods could be made more affordable if other countries participated.

The communications problem is just one of several technical issues the air force is working on.

National Defence has asked the U.S. manufacturer whether it's possible to install a different air-to-air refuelling system on Canadian F-35s. Most other air forces in the world have stopped using what's known as a “probe and drogue” connection, opting instead for a plug-in receptacle which connects to a boom on the tanker aircraft.

The request was made because it's unclear when Canada will able to upgrade its air-to-air refuellers with the booms. Lockheed Martin says it can equip the F-35s to use both systems, but a decision on whether to spend money on modification has yet to be made.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-stealth-fighters-lack-ability-to-communicate-from-canadas-north/article2210678/
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on October 24, 2011, 09:44:53
"National Defence has asked the U.S. manufacturer whether it's possible to install a different air-to-air refuelling system on Canadian F-35s. Most other air forces in the world have stopped using what's known as a “probe and drogue” connection, opting instead for a plug-in receptacle which connects to a boom on the tanker aircraft."

Good one.  Serious reporting and comedy in the same story.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on October 24, 2011, 09:56:51
speaking of Flight Testing . . .  this just popped into my Inbox from SLD.

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-pilot/

The pilots seem to like the aircraft.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on October 24, 2011, 16:21:23
And now the government response...why can't anyone just say that the Hornets will be around doing NORAD missions in the high north until after the JSF's have the upgrade done?  It's not like we're going to retire all of our CF-18's the second we start receiving the -35's...

Quote
Tory procurement chief vows fighter jets will be up to the job in Arctic

Jane Taber
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Monday, October 24, 2011 11:48AM EDT

Stephen Harper’s minister in charge of military procurement is assuring taxpayers the communications system on costly new F-35 stealth fighters will “meet or exceed current capabilities.”

Julian Fantino, the Associate Minister of National Defence, told The Globe and Mail on Monday the government will “ensure that our men and women in uniform have the best equipment to do their jobs safely and effectively.”

Mr. Fantino’s statement, sent by email from his director of communications Chris McCluskey, is vague amid a dramatic weekend report that the 65 jets the government is purchasing will not be able to communicate from the Arctic.

However, the minister may be forced to reveal more as the opposition plans to pursue the story in Question Period later Monday.

The government’s justification for the new fighter jets is, part, for patrolling the Far North and protecting Canada’s airspace. The Conservatives have made Arctic sovereignty a main plank of their government.

“Reasonable people agree that we need aircraft to defend Canadian sovereignty,” Mr. Fantino said in his statement. “We expect communications for our aircraft in the north to meet or exceed current capabilities.”

The Canadian Press report says the F-35s – which will cost between $16- and $35-billion, including long-term maintenance – will likely not have the communications capability in the initial stage of production and then not until production reaches its fourth phase in 2019.

That ability is key to working in the Arctic where military aircraft now rely on satellite communications, according to the report.

The F-35 purchase has proved controversial of late, given the awarding last week of the $33-billion shipbuilding contract. The bidding process was at arms-length from politicians and politics and has been hailed as a template for future contract awards.

Some opposition politicians, including Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae, have asked the Prime Minister why this same process couldn’t have been used on the jet purchase. The opposition has been very critical of the fact that the fighter contract was sole-sourced.

The Liberals vowed in the May election to cancel the commitment to buy the jets if they were elected and ton instead hold an open competition.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tory-procurement-chief-vows-fighter-jets-will-be-up-to-the-job-in-arctic/article2211518/
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PuckChaser on October 24, 2011, 16:49:48
Quote
The Liberals vowed in the May election to cancel the commitment to buy the jets if they were elected and ton instead hold an open competition.

Maybe that's why they dramatically lost seats? Could at least be one of the factors...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on October 24, 2011, 17:31:06
Lots of teapot, not much tempest.

The news appears to be the planned roll-out of F-35 capabilities,  a capability roll-out that is a series of software upgrades, which includes a suite of secure SatComs for data and voice, is happening as planned and that, it appears, to be bad news.

Further in the story we are told that a  design feature of the F-35A - that the aircraft has been designed to handle either or both methods of aerial refueling, that we can select the refueling method Canada prefers,  is now somehow a technical issue. 

We are further  told that most other air forces in the world don't use the  Probe  & Drogue  technology we have opted for - with the implied  message that a major mistake has been made in the selection of a refueling technology for the CF -35.  I think it would be a very major surprise to "most other air forces"  that they have switched to Boom technology to refuel their fighters.

Wonder why if the majority of other air forces have switched to Boom refueling that all the western world fighter aircraft manufacturers make fighter aircraft with Probe & Drogue technology and all the dedicated  aerial refueling aircraft fly with that reel & hose pods?

Most curios state of affairs.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: thunderchild on October 24, 2011, 17:36:03
I just read an article from the Ottawa Citizen that stated that the F-35 will not be delivered with the ability to communicate by satellite.  It also stated that that system may not be developed and as delivered will not have the ability to communicate in the arctic?  The solution suggested was to hang equipment on the aircraft, that would increase its radar signature but give it the same capability as the CF-18.  So we are buying a plane that does not have all the equipment that we need, It's stealth would be compromised to bring it to the level of the plane it is suppose to be better than, and there is debate over what the real flyaway cost will be? So what do we really know about this $30B purchase for certain....it's a 5th generation plane.  How's this plane up to the job? ???
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on October 24, 2011, 18:27:31
I just read an article from the Ottawa Citizen that stated that the F-35 will not  . . .  blah, blah blah . . .  .  How's this plane up to the job? ???

lotsa F-35 porn to read and think about

http://issuu.com/faircountmedia/docs/jsf06
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 25, 2011, 10:10:27
Just because it's a good cartoon ... not because I think the RCAF will not solve whatever comms problems (always) exist with any aircraft project.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbeta.images.theglobeandmail.com%2Farchive%2F01334%2Ftueedcar25co1_1334001cl-8.jpg&hash=555b1bcddba1b098aa98d6bf90ef74fc)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: GAP on October 27, 2011, 08:51:42
Ottawa to spend up to $477M on U.S. military satellites
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/26/ottawa-to-spend-up-to-477m-on-u-s-military-satellites/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/26/ottawa-to-spend-up-to-477m-on-u-s-military-satellites/)

Postmedia News  Oct 26, 2011 – 8:35 PM ET

By Lee Berthiaume

OTTAWA — The federal government is planning to spend as much as $477-million to participate in a U.S.-led military satellite program that has been subject to delays and cost overruns over the past decade, Postmedia News has learned.

The Wideband Global Satellite system has been advertised by the U.S. Defense Department as a communications system for “U.S. warfighters, allies and coalition partners during all levels of conflict, short of nuclear war.”

The idea is to have as many as nine military satellites hovering over different parts of the world, ready to provide high-frequency bandwidth for U.S. and allied forces wherever they may be operating.

Daniel Blouin, a spokesman for Canada’s Department of National Defence, said the Canadian Forces has identified improved communication capabilities as a necessity.

“After Afghanistan and Libya, our efforts in those two countries have proven that the exchange of information between headquarters and deployed elements is critical to modern military operations and their success,” Blouin said.

“So, in order to meet that intent while ensuring good value for taxpayer money, we’re seeking out an agreement with international allies that will provide Canadian forces with access to an international constellation of satellites.”

If Canada does join the Wideband Global Satellite System, or WGS, it will be the latest ally to get onboard the project.

Australia agreed in 2007 to contribute more than $800 million US to pay for the sixth satellite in return for a portion of the system’s overall bandwidth. New Zealand, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands also have expressed interest.

Several weeks ago, Cabinet gave Defence Minister Peter MacKay permission to pay up to $477-million to ensure Canadian participation.

Blouin would not say what type of agreement Canada is pursuing as negotiations are still underway. However, he said the $477-million would be paid over a number of years.

“We’re not looking for access to military communications for a single year. That’s not in our best interests,” he said. “We’re looking for long-term planning to meet the needs of the Canadian Forces.”

The federal government is looking to create a two-satellite system over the Arctic to provide Canada with improved military communication services and aid in defence operations.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MCG on November 03, 2011, 12:57:20
It seems the newest political debate is that we may not be planning to buy enough.
Quote
Military: Too few F-35 fighters on tap
Cost of up to $150 million each limits purchase to 65, not the suggested 80

Murray Brewster
The Canadian Press
Published in: The Chronicle-Herald
02 Nov 2011

OTTAWA - Military planners are concerned the Harper government is buying too few F-35 fighters with almost no room for any loss of the stealth jets throughout their projected lifetimes, according to internal Defence Department briefings.

"Canada is the only country that did not account (for) attrition aircraft" in its proposal, said an undated capability-and-sustainment briefing given to senior officers late last year.

The eye-popping pricetag for individual joint strike fighters - ranging from $75 million to $150 million, depending upon the estimate - has limited the purchase to 65 aircraft.

Access-to-information records, obtained by The Canadian Press, show that when the joint strike fighter was proposed almost a decade ago the air force had recommended a fleet of 80.

Nevertheless, Defence Minister Peter MacKay has insisted 65 is adequate to meet Canada's military needs.

But a separate information briefing from earlier in 2010 shows that the country is purchasing "the minimum acceptable fleet size" and that the air force has been told it should "be prepared to manage the operational risk should the fleet drop below 65 due to attrition."

The F-35s are replacing roughly 77 CF-18s - just over half the original number of 138 purchased almost 30 years ago.

Some of the existing fleet was retired by the Chretien government to save money in the 1990s, while others were lost due to accidents.

Air force planners began to sweat after crunching attrition numbers for the new stealth jet last fall. They looked at the CF-18's accident rate per 100,000 hours of flying time and determined the F-35 might be able to evade radar, but it can't escape fate.

"Canada will lose aircraft; not a question of "if' but "when,' " said a Sept. 14, 2010, report.

On the upside, the planners believe that the highly automated F-35s will likely lead to fewer human-error - or "pilot-distraction" - crashes.

There was a spike in CF-18 accidents shortly after they were introduced as aircrew became familiar with them - something the air force worries will happen with the new jets.

The concern has been flagged to the attention of the Harper government, which "will consider the acquisition of replacement attrition aircraft," said the briefing.

But there's a problem there with that. Lockheed Martin is expecting to shut down its production line in 2035, while Canada is committed to flying the stealth fighter until at least 2050.

No one at the Defence Department was immediately available for comment on Tuesday.

But the executive director of the Air Force Association of Canada said it's understood the Harper government is buying what it can afford.

"The cost drives anything and everything, every time," said Dean Black, a retired lieutenant-colonel. "The folks in the highest offices in the country balance all of the considerations and we happen to be living in a tough economy. It is understood these are dire times."

Given the economic times and since the issue is routinely rocketed into the political stratosphere, the chances of the Harper government convincing anyone it needs more stealth jets is next to unlikely, he said.

Black said it's long been accepted that in the event of war or serious emergency, even with CF-18s, the Royal Canadian Air Force does not have enough fighters to maintain continuous air cover over each of the country's major cities.

A U.S. diplomatic cable recently highlighted Washington's concern about that fact and complained about the necessity of the U.S. Air Force stepping in to defend Canadian airspace.

"I'm hoping this report will focus the attention of our elected officials and most senior military officials on what it is we have to do to protect Canadians in Canada."

The air force report noted that Lockheed Martin will test-fly planes while building production models - a risky proposition according to critics.

The first Canadian F-35 is expected to be delivered in 2016 to the pilot training centre in the U.S.

It will take another three years before the first stealth plane makes it to an operational squadron, 4 Wing at CFB Cold Lake, Alta. Bagotville, Que., the other new home, won't see its first plane until 2020, according to internal documents.

The delivery schedule is pushing the current CF-18s to the very limit of their operational life. Even after a multibillion-dollar facelift, the workhorse of the fighter community, designed in the 1980s, is projected to be retired in 2020.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Colin P on November 03, 2011, 18:41:06
I got a chuckle out of this, previously I had picked 80 air frames as the number we should get for a mixed fleet of F-35's and other (Super Hornet likely) My number was a guesstimate, man I should offer my services as a consultant for a modest fee of course... ;D
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on November 10, 2011, 12:47:02
Hello everyone, some great news.

The contract for the first lot of LRIP 4 F-35A was awarded on Nov. 19/2010. The first aircraft of LRIP 4 was completely built and out the door from Lockheed Martin on Nov. 2/2011. The production of that single aircraft, which comes from the same LRIP lot which Canada is buying their F-35's at, cost $111M - almost $40M less than what the PBO forecasted when the lot was to be at peak production. As the number of LRIP 4 aircraft produced increases, the cost per aircraft will drop significantly.

Also, that cost didn't include the engine which for our variant will run $15M a piece.

I predict that the overall cost for a new LRIP 4 platform - complete with systems including comms - and the engine will cost about $85M a pop when the line is running at peak efficiency between 2017 and 2020.

Just don't let the PBO or other sceptics know...they might start to cry.  ;)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on November 10, 2011, 13:37:06
more current information,  much to much good news to read about  elsewhere

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/F-35-Fast-Facts-Nov-1-2011.pdf#F-35

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on November 10, 2011, 13:39:07
Just don't let the PBO or other sceptics know...they might start to cry.  ;)

Far from it. Your math does not take into account what it will cost to bring LRIP aircraft to the final configuration as a result of all the DT&E and OT&E that remains to be done. As i have said before, producing LRIP aircraft can be a double-edged sword sometimes.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on November 10, 2011, 13:57:13
more F-35 porn

http://www.nxtbook.com/faircount/F-35LightningII/JSFII/index.php#/16



If you are not registered with  DMN . . .

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/register/?member_type_id=1
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: dapaterson on November 10, 2011, 14:32:00
more current information,  much to much good news to read about  elsewhere

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/F-35-Fast-Facts-Nov-1-2011.pdf#F-35

Perhaps a bit more convincing if it were not the manufacturer.

As well, they state # flights / # landings etc, but never provide the baseline target data - 5 flight is great if the target is 4, not so great if the target is 10.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on November 14, 2011, 18:54:06
And some RCAF F-35 porn for the eyes...

Quote
A Case for the F-35 Lightning
by Tim Dunne

Introduction
The Canadian Government’s 16 July 2010 announcement that it was to replace the ageing CF-18 Hornet with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter (JSF) aircraft predictably attracted stern admonishment from Rideau Institute president Steven Staples, and from others who oppose military purchases.

Their objections revolve around their beliefs that Canada does not need a fifth generation (5G) combat aircraft; that there was the arbitrary selection of a single aircraft without a legitimate competitive process; and that the cost is excessive. They suggest that we purchase lesser aircraft, presumably for a lesser cost, if, indeed, they agree with a fighter aircraft acquisition program at all.

Typically, Canada squeezes all possible productivity out of its aircraft (and other military hardware) before they are retired. Witness the continued service of the Second World War DC-3 Dakota, acquired in 1943 and flown until 1988, and the Sea King maritime helicopter, which will celebrate its 50th year of service on 1 August 2013. Our current CF-18A Hornet fighter aircraft, purchased in the 1980s, will be nearly 40 years old when they are ultimately decommissioned and replaced. Rapidly becoming moribund in the air combat world, our Hornets would be dangerous vehicles in which to engage in fifth generation warfare. The aircraft is wearing out, and it needs to be replaced within five-to-ten years.

More at the following link

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo11/no4/55-dunne-eng.asp
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Kalatzi on November 15, 2011, 14:25:37
Looks like Christmas could be coming early ;D

Washington could scrap its F-35 jet purchase
link http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/washington-could-scrap-its-f-35-jet-purchase/article2236889/

Finally some potential sanity in Washington

I note with intrest that the x-45/47? UCAV has been passing all its tests with flying colours and I beleive it's taken all of about two years, as opposed tro decades to achive this.

To try to empathize, I can now imagine how the Horse cavalry guys felt when they heard about this new fangled "Tank"
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Dimsum on November 15, 2011, 15:46:42

I note with intrest that the x-45/47? UCAV has been passing all its tests with flying colours and I beleive it's taken all of about two years, as opposed tro decades to achive this.

To try to empathize, I can now imagine how the Horse cavalry guys felt when they heard about this new fangled "Tank"

I use that quote (or something like that) all the time.  Glad to see someone else does too.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: IBM on November 16, 2011, 16:55:10
With all the current budget constraints on DND, this might not be an unlikely plan B should the F-35 get shitcanned:
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 16, 2011, 22:11:17
Looks like Christmas could be coming early ;D

Washington could scrap its F-35 jet purchase
link http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/washington-could-scrap-its-f-35-jet-purchase/article2236889/

Finally some potential sanity in Washington

I note with intrest that the x-45/47? UCAV has been passing all its tests with flying colours and I beleive it's taken all of about two years, as opposed tro decades to achive this.

To try to empathize, I can now imagine how the Horse cavalry guys felt when they heard about this new fangled "Tank"

Are you trying to imply that either of these UCAVs are fighter replacements in our Strategic environment?  Could you enlighten me on how you feel that would be so? Be specific on how you feel a non-afterburning UCAV, weighing less than 10,000lbs, that is a pure strike weapon and that is unable to carry any air to air weapons and has never (to my knowledge) been tested north of 70N is the replacement for the CF-18?  How do you see the control segment working?  Who's satellites are we using?  How are we securing the ground segment from interdiction? 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on November 16, 2011, 22:23:12
Looks like Christmas could be coming early ;D

Washington could scrap its F-35 jet purchase
To try to empathize, I can now imagine how the Horse cavalry guys felt when they heard about this new fangled "Tank"

Both horse and tank were/are just "rides".

Both horse and tank were/are manned.

It will be a while yet before any UAV pushes pilots out of cockpits in significant numbers.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: FSTO on November 17, 2011, 08:36:54
I have no dog in this hunt, but I hope that the RCAF has a plan b (Super Hornet?) just in case the F35 is a victim of the US budget crisis.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on November 17, 2011, 08:51:08
I have no dog in this hunt, but I hope that the RCAF has a plan b (Super Hornet?) just in case the F35 is a victim of the US budget crisis.
Depends who you believe in this story (http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/16/canada-will-get-the-best-military-equipment-fantino).....
Quote
If plans to replace Canada’s 30-year-old fighter jets with the F-35 stealth fighter fall through, Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino says he’ll be ready.

“Not only is there a plan B, but there is a plan A to ensure that we acquire the best possible equipment for our men and women,” Fantino told the House of Commons Wednesday.

But senior Conservative officials say there really isn’t a Plan B.

“Plan B is F-35s. Plan C is also F-35s,” one official said.

Fantino’s comments came as opposition politicians seized on reports U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta had warned American politicians if they didn’t find $1.2 trillion in savings soon, programs like the F-35 would have to be cancelled ....

Here's the full back and forth w/Fantino from Question Period yesterday (http://tinyurl.com/hansard-qp-f35-16nov11):
Quote
Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Associate Minister of National Defence said that our allies understand the importance of the F-35 program. Apparently, he did not get their memos. The Americans are on the verge of withdrawing from the program entirely. Norway, Australia and the United Kingdom are also considering withdrawing, and the Netherlands has already backed out. It is quite clear that the government is not getting the message from our allies.  Will the government finally launch a transparent bidding process for a new plane?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is engaging in fearmongering about the importance of the F-35 program, a program that is critical to maintaining Canada's sovereignty, supporting our military men and women and creating aerospace jobs for Canadians. We are on track, we are on time and we are staying with the program.

Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP):  If the government would show leadership and demand that economic spinoff clauses be included in a bidding process for fighter jets, the Canadian industry would benefit from more jobs anyway. The government is saying that the price of the F-35s will drop once the factories making the planes are running full throttle, but that may never happen because we will likely be the only ones ordering these planes.  Why is this government so bent on wasting taxpayers' money on planes that no one wants? The F-35 program has stalled; does the government have a plan B for replacing our CF-18s?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, not only is there a plan B, but there is a plan A to ensure that we acquire the best possible equipment for our men and women. Moreover, we are one of nine international nations that are part of this program. It was the Liberal government of the day that got us involved in this to begin with.

Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, the point is that plan A is not working here. Yesterday the associate minister of defence claimed again that our allies “...understand the importance of this program”. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, he missed the memo. Let me share the news: Israel, Australia, Turkey, and Norway are all reconsidering their orders, and the Americans are talking about pulling out entirely. The Conservatives insist everything is fine.  The F-35 purchase has become a fiasco. When will the government admit its expensive mistake and put this boondoggle of a contract out to public tender?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, our government and our closest military allies understand the importance of this program to the protection of our sovereignty. Canada is not the only country among our closest allies warning critics of the damage their reckless plans would cause to our military and aerospace workers.  I am pleased that Secretary Panetta has taken a similar action to warn Congress of the reckless short-sighted implications such a proposal could have. If our opposition members had their way, they would cancel the equipment our air force agrees is the best it needs to do its job in safety and to key effect.

Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, it is the same line again. To the associate minister and the Prime Minister, living in denial is a dangerously expensive and irresponsible approach to military procurement.  The facts here are simple. The economics are simple. The government says the F-35 price tag will go down when the planes are in full production, but when we are the only ones ordering them, that price can only skyrocket.  If the Americans pull out of the F-35 program, this plane is unaffordable, so what is the government's backup plan? Why is the government hell-bent on blowing the budget on a plane that everyone else is walking away--

The Speaker:  The hon. Associate Minister of National Defence.

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely untrue. There is no indication that anybody is walking away from the F-35 program. The aircraft are coming off the production line. Pilots are flying them. They are being delivered to countries. Our program is on track and on time, and we are staying with it.

Also, from the PM during QP (http://tinyurl.com/hansard-qp-f35-16nov11-2):
Quote
Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, a number of our allies are now reviewing the F-35 contract, which means that the total number ordered may be lower than anticipated. The Americans themselves are facing a great challenge with this. Now we hear that the production of the plane may in fact be delayed.  I ask the Prime Minister, exactly what will it take to convince the government that this contract is one that needs to be reviewed by the Canadian government? We need to have a competition to produce the best possible price for the greatest possible Canadian security.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, it was the previous government that ran a competition to select a company internationally to create the next generation fighter plane.  The current CF-18s will begin to come to the end of their useful life in this decade. That is why we are proceeding with the purchase of new airplanes, with great support by the way from not just the men and women in uniform but also the industry.  I have heard no concrete suggestion on how we would proceed from the Liberal Party.

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: Canada needs a new, real competition to meet our needs here in Canada, to meet the needs of the Canadian industry and to meet our security needs. That is what must be done. We need to look at how the facts are changing. The government is taking an ideological approach that makes no sense. That is the Liberal Party of Canada's concrete suggestion.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, procuring the F-35s is supported not only by the Canadian Forces, but also by the aerospace industry in Canada, particularly in Quebec. The proposal to kill this industry makes no sense. That is why the Liberal Party is getting the cold shoulder.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on November 17, 2011, 08:56:24
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo11/no4/55-dunne-eng.asp
With all due respect to this author who knows how to do his job well based on experience, I'm intrigued to see an opinion piece on a pretty technical matter written for a military professional journal by a communications/PR expert.  I'd be less surprised to see a PR practitioner write about how the Government "sold" the project to the public, or how the media covered it, as opposed to detailing the hard technical merits.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on November 17, 2011, 11:25:49
.... in Halifax, according to the Globe & Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/mackay-to-meet-us-counterpart-amid-fighter-jet-confusion/article2239397/):
Quote
Defence Minister Peter MacKay will be dealing with the future of the F-35 stealth fighter program when he meets Friday in Halifax with his American counterpart, Leon Panetta.

The U.S. Defence Secretary has expressed concern about the program as Washington deals with deep budget cuts, needing to find $1.2-trillion over the next 10 years. Failure by Democrats and Republicans to reach a compromise could put the fighter-jet program in jeopardy, he warned.

That message was heard loud and clear in Canada. MPs seized on Mr. Panetta’s comments, demanding answers from the government as to whether its F-35 program would be scrapped. (Canada is to purchase 65 of the new jets – a controversial decision with the opposition accusing the government of not sending out the multi-million-dollar contract to tender.)

Mr. MacKay will meet Mr. Panetta Friday at the third annual Halifax International Security Forum. The two men will be joined by Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino, who is responsible for procurement.

“They will be discussing bilateral defence issues as well as global developments,” Jay Paxton, the Defence Minister’s communications director, told The Globe Thursday. “As part of these discussions Minister MacKay, Associate Minister Fantino and Secretary of Defence Panetta will discuss the F35.”  ....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on November 17, 2011, 12:38:53
With all due respect to this author who knows how to do his job well based on experience, I'm intrigued to see an opinion piece on a pretty technical matter written for a military professional journal by a communications/PR expert.  I'd be less surprised to see a PR practitioner write about how the Government "sold" the project to the public, or how the media covered it, as opposed to detailing the hard technical merits.

Interesting note, but to be fair, has any member of the military come out with language which is contrary to what the sitting government position on any matter is?

As for detailing hard technical merits of the program, I'm sorry - I didn't read anything in that article that describes any hard technical merits of the program in any way shape or form.  If that was the authors intent then he would be a subject matter specialist discussing how the DAS makes this aircraft much better than anything else in existence, or how the LO of the platform is a great feature to guard against things such as mobile SAM units.

The general public don't enjoy reading in depth articles about why this plane is part of what the AF needs*, they would rather hear reasons which aren't factual but easily remembered to help them come up with new reasons to dislike this acquisition.

*Personal point of view, one in favour of a multiple platform fleet which would mean greater investment in platforms, pilots, WSO's, and techs.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on November 17, 2011, 12:48:57
Interesting note, but to be fair, has any member of the military come out with language which is contrary to what the sitting government position on any matter is?
True, for obvious reasons.

As for detailing hard technical merits of the program, I'm sorry - I didn't read anything in that article that describes any hard technical merits of the program in any way shape or form.  If that was the authors intent then he would be a subject matter specialist discussing how the DAS makes this aircraft much better than anything else in existence, or how the LO of the platform is a great feature to guard against things such as mobile SAM units.
I should have been clearer in my post - this seems to be more an overall explanation of why, not nuts & bolts technical.  It's still interesting to hear this from a communications expert, not a process or political expert.

The general public don't enjoy reading in depth articles about why this plane is part of what the AF needs*, they would rather hear reasons which aren't factual but easily remembered to help them come up with new reasons to dislike this acquisition.
No way I can disagree with that bit in yellow - not JUST for the reason you've given on the issue at play in this thread.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Kalatzi on November 17, 2011, 17:00:46
"Are you trying to imply that either of these UCAVs are fighter replacements in our Strategic environment?  Could you enlighten me on how you feel that would be so? Be specific on how you feel a non-afterburning UCAV, weighing less than 10,000lbs, that is a pure strike weapon and that is unable to carry any air to air weapons and has never (to my knowledge) been tested north of 70N is the replacement for the CF-18?  How do you see the control segment working?  Who's satellites are we using?  How are we securing the ground segment from interdiction? "

I agree that a full UCAV strike capabilirty is still some ways away. The thing that I find most interesting is that there has been plenty of concern about the costs of this programme for some time. It most reminds me of the 60's era F-111 boondoggle. The US forces are lloking at contingencies, eg Super Hornet, that may well provide better value. 



Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on November 17, 2011, 17:52:02
The US "could" scrap the F-35 program.

They "could" also scrap the 6th Fleet and/or they "could" disband the Marine Corps  . .  . whatever.

Ain't gonna happen, even if throws a tingle up the leg of some MSMers and the F-35 Haters.

Too much sunk $, too expensive to fill the gaps with far less capable fleets of very old maintenance piggy aircrafts.

As for UCAV's  . . . not quite ready for Prime Time yet.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Dimsum on November 17, 2011, 18:03:13
Slight side-track from Kalatzi's tangent about the "horse and tank" thing:

I read the article today in the G&M about it and in "related" news it tries to compare the F-35 to the Global Hawk, Predator and X-47.  That irked me since it's like comparing apples to hammers; GH and Predator/Reaper are primarily ISR platforms (strategic for GH, tactical for P/R) despite P/R's strike capability.  None of those 4 (will) do the same job.  So, replacing a manned aircraft with a UCAV at this point is foolish.

In the future though...my belief is that Pilots will have no job fears for the next generation, if nothing else than the fact that I can't see anyone wanting to be a passenger in an UAV airliner yet.  However, missions like ISR and Patrol are perfectly suited to UAVs, and fighter or cargo transport may be next.  Eventually though, despite possibly (probably) violent resistance from pilots, UAVs will be the way of the future at least in military aviation.  I want to be flying as much as the next guy, but when the USAF is creating more UAV pilots than actual pilots, one has to wonder.

I don't think that the "UAV v. manned aircraft" as a "horse v. tank" argument is correct; it's more like this:

http://www.afblues.com/wordpress/2009/09/17/09172009/

(Yes, the comic is really about the "not a real pilot" jab some aircrew think about people who fly UAVs, but the argument is the same.)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on November 17, 2011, 18:51:29
Once some real UCAVs are available in numbers that actually allow them to be used tactically I would expect them to be flying as "wing men" to a couple of manned fighters.....

Somebody needs to be "on the ground" to visually confirm the targeting.  The UCAVs would likely do a great job of actually carrying the strike weapons, flying "wild weasel" screens, or just supplying a bunch of alternate targets for the Anti-Aircraft types thus making it harder to find and hit the manned aircraft.

Just sayin'.....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Dimsum on November 17, 2011, 19:07:57
Once some real UCAVs are available in numbers that actually allow them to be used tactically I would expect them to be flying as "wing men" to a couple of manned fighters.....

Somebody needs to be "on the ground" to visually confirm the targeting. The UCAVs would likely do a great job of actually carrying the strike weapons, flying "wild weasel" screens, or just supplying a bunch of alternate targets for the Anti-Aircraft types thus making it harder to find and hit the manned aircraft.

Just sayin'.....

That would be the JTAC/FOO/FAC.  Speaking in broad terms, when the fighter is rolling in and looking through the Sniper pod, it's no different than the Predator/Reaper/UCAV with the camera on the target.  The only difference is that if the fighter were to be shot down, there would be no need for a CSAR mission.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on November 17, 2011, 19:28:50
That would be the JTAC/FOO/FAC.  Speaking in broad terms, when the fighter is rolling in and looking through the Sniper pod, it's no different than the Predator/Reaper/UCAV with the camera on the target.  The only difference is that if the fighter were to be shot down, there would be no need for a CSAR mission.

You don't always need people on the ground to validate the target. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Journeyman on November 17, 2011, 19:34:33
Just some additional fluff to your thinking on the demise of manned aircraft et al....

Consider that for most large-item procurement, you're looking at 9-13 years before the first piece of equipment is on the ground...or along side (yes, I know Hillier beat that all to hell with the Leo 2s). We then habitually hold it on inventory for 30 years, with two peaks/troughs in capability, assuming a mid-life refit of sorts.

Even if one puts more emphasis on capability-based planning, rather than Cold War-style threat-based planning, who here knows what the strategic environment will be like in 2035? 2050?

When are we likely to see effective UCAVs such that the CF will commit to having them in Cold Lake 9-13 years later? At that time will they have the requisite flexibility we now have with manned aircraft (ie - are we likely to commit to 'a work in progress' or will we waffle retain options until the technology is quite mature?

      :dunno:   Me neither
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: HeavyHooker on November 17, 2011, 21:32:59
Quote
Too much sunk $, too expensive to fill the gaps with far less capable fleets of very old maintenance piggy aircrafts
Like the Comanche right?  Too big to fail kind of thing?  Just a thought...

I know that this will meet resistance here but what about the idea of a new jet that is affordable in greater numbers (yes, F/A-18E/F, I am looking at you) where we buy twice as many for much less than the currently rising cost of the F-35 and then a fleet of Reaper/Preds with the remainder.

Before the big flame war begins, here is my argument: 
The jets keep Cold Lake and B-Ville rocking and they fulfil our NORAD commitment with more numbers and bite (more hardpoints, slightly longer range) and fulfil our domestic fighter necessity.  It gives us more jets for more aircrews to defend more targets.  With the larger fleet of fighters, it also provides the opportunity to deploy fighters if req'd and still have acceptable numbers at home.  Also, we get the jets sooner than the current 2017 (maybe, sorta, kinda, if it goes, etc etc etc).  One last perk is that it quiets critics that we are not buying a large enough fighter force and not accounting for the inevitable losses. 

The UCAV fleet supplies an easily deployable combat proven force at a minimum cost (in comparison) that can augment future missions.  The intimate support provided to TICs for the incredible loiter time is without comparison.  It is affordable and as a chopper dude, the ability for a UAV/UCAV to soak a potentially hot LZ for extended periods of time is not something I would be comfortable without, now that I have been spoiled with it!

Interested to hear replies on this one. 

HH
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MCG on November 17, 2011, 22:10:54
I have no dog in this hunt, but I hope that the RCAF has a plan b (Super Hornet?) just in case the F35 is a victim of the US budget crisis.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay will be dealing with the future of the F-35 stealth fighter program when he meets Friday in Halifax with his American counterpart, Leon Panetta.
?Plan B: Convince US to re-open F-22 production and allow export of a multi-role variant to F-35 partner countries?

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on November 18, 2011, 08:22:44
Julian Fantino's latest from Question Period yesterday (http://tinyurl.com/hansard-qp-f35-17nov11):
Quote
"Mr. Speaker, all reasonable people agree that the Canadian Forces require a fighter fleet to face the challenges of the 21st century. The best plane and the only state-of-the-art stealth aircraft available to Canada to face the challenges of the next 30 years is the F-35 joint strike fighter. Our plan is on track. We continue to monitor this investment closely through direct contact with Lockheed Martin and the F-35 joint project team. The Minister of National Defence and I will be in Halifax this weekend and will be meeting with the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Mr. Panetta.

(....)

Let me repeat that our plan is on track. We continue to monitor this investment. We are working towards progress. The planes are coming off the production line. Pilots are flying them. They are being delivered to the joint strike fighter team. Not only that, unlike the NDP travelling to the U.S. in an effort to kill and derail thousands of Canadian jobs, when we meet with U.S. authorities, it is to create Canadian jobs .... all reasonable people agree that the Canadian Forces require fighter jets to do the job for the challenges of the 21st century. The best plane and the only state-of-the-art stealth aircraft available to Canada to face the challenges of the next 30 years is the F-35 joint strike fighter. Our plan is on track. We continue to monitor this investment closely through direct contact with Lockheed Martin, as well as the U.S. authorities and the project team. There is no trading our commitment. There is no downgrading of the commitment. We are there. We are on track.

(....)

I can guarantee that the plan is on track. We are sticking with the program. The planes are coming off the production line. They are being flown by pilots who know their business. I prefer to listen to them and to the experts rather than the idle chatter from the opposite side."
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on November 18, 2011, 09:31:46
Before the big flame war begins, here is my argument: 

The jets keep Cold Lake and B-Ville rocking and they fulfil our NORAD commitment with more numbers and bite (more hardpoints, slightly longer range) and fulfil our domestic fighter necessity.  It gives us more jets for more aircrews to defend more targets.  With the larger fleet of fighters, it also provides the opportunity to deploy fighters if req'd and still have acceptable numbers at home.  Also, we get the jets sooner than the current 2017 (maybe, sorta, kinda, if it goes, etc etc etc).  One last perk is that it quiets critics that we are not buying a large enough fighter force and not accounting for the inevitable losses.

75nm in the grand scheme of things doesn't do much for an aircraft when it comes to range.  Also, when you consider that one of the stations on the Super Hornet will be used for a targeting pod, it drops the number of hardpoints to the equivalent number on the F-35.  Add to this equation the LO characteristics of the F-35 along with the DAS and you have a vastly superior platform with much greater situational awareness than anything else out there.

The RCAF currently flies approx 80 CF-18's, and we deployed 7 to Libya while still maintaining our NORAD requirements here at home.  With the purchase of 65 F-35's, which will bring greater combat capabilities than the current fleet of CF-18's to the battlefield, I'm willing to wager that a smaller number can be deployed and still maintain combat efficiency equal or greater to that shown by the CF-18's in their recent deployment. 

With that being said, I'd like to see more purchased - say a fleet of 80 aircraft, provided it fits into the $9B which the government has earmarked for the acquisition.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on November 18, 2011, 09:33:48
?Plan B: Convince US to re-open F-22 production and allow export of a multi-role variant to F-35 partner countries?

The F-22 line will never reopen, and the current variant of the F-22 is a multi role platform although not a very efficient one.

That is why the F-35 was developed - to work alongside the Raptor, not to replace it.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 18, 2011, 09:47:29
Maybe we can buy these:

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdefense-update.com%2Fimages_large3%2Fj20_1.jpg&hash=995ccdbb38f74c382b541040d197b85e)
Chengdu J-20: China's 5th Generation Fighter

They are supposed to be in production in 2018.
 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: GAP on November 18, 2011, 11:25:14
British Harriers Join The U.S. Marine Corps
November 18, 2011
 Article Link (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/20111118.aspx)

 Britain is selling all its Harrier jet fighters, spare parts and ancillary to the U.S. Marine Corps. The American marines are the largest operator of Harrier aircraft, with 140 AV-8Bs in service.

A year ago, Britain retired its fleet of 74 Harrier vertical-takeoff jets as a cost-cutting measure. The aircraft were put into storage, but with enough maintenance services to keep them in shape for rapid reactivation. It was hoped that a buyer could be found. The American marines were not interested initially, because they were expecting the new F-35B to arrive in time to replace their aging Harriers. The F-35B has suffered numerous delays, and is now threatened with cancellation. This led to the purchase of Britain's Harrier aircraft and spare parts. This will keep the marine Harriers in service for at least another two decades. Without the infusion of British equipment, the American Harriers would have been retired in about fifteen years.

Most of the British Harriers will be cannibalized for spare parts. The British and American Harriers are largely identical. A lot of the electronics is different, but the airframes and engines are interchangeable. There is agreement on the price for the stock of spare parts ($50 million), but negotiations continue (in the form of dueling spreadsheets) over what the decommissioned British Harriers are worth. This issue is expected to be resolved before the end of the year. The 74 British Harriers could sell for half a billion dollars or more.
More on link
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on November 18, 2011, 11:39:30
The F-35B has suffered numerous delays, and is now threatened with cancellation.

No offence, but with your highlighting you're making the same error that many in the MSM are making - thinking that whatever happens to the B model is happening or going to happen to the A model which is the variant which Canada is purchasing.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on November 18, 2011, 11:52:59
The latest out of Halifax.....
Quote
"Defence Minister Peter MacKay and U.S. Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta dismissed speculation that budget pressures will cause their countries to pull back from the F-35 jet purchase on Friday when they spoke at the Halifax International Security Forum.  "There is no fifth generation aircraft other than the F-35 available to Canada and the United States," MacKay told reporters at a joint press conference with Panetta following a bilateral meeting. "This program is going ahead."  "Clearly budgetary pressures are going to lead to speculation, we are dealing with our budgets as all countries are dealing with [their] budgets but we are not wavering on our commitment to this program," MacKay said.  Panetta called the F-35 the "fighter plane for the future." His department has been asked to slash more than $450 billion from its budget over the next 10 years, Panetta said. While it looks for savings it will also look for areas of investment and the F-35 program is one of those areas, he said.  Despite the budget pressures, Panetta said he is "very confident" that his department will get the funding for the procurement ...."
CBC.ca, 18 Nov 11 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/11/18/pol-security-forum-halifax.html)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: GAP on November 18, 2011, 12:21:22
No offence, but with your highlighting you're making the same error that many in the MSM are making - thinking that whatever happens to the B model is happening or going to happen to the A model which is the variant which Canada is purchasing.

No I am not. I am pointing out that they bought the Harriers because of anticipated delays...nothing more.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on November 18, 2011, 12:43:16
No I am not. I am pointing out that they bought the Harriers because of anticipated delays...nothing more.

I apologise -  :facepalm: - what I meant to say, and please don't take this to reflect on you, is that comments made about the -B model are often attributed to the -A model. 

I've done too much posting today...time for a nap and then to go take some pictures...  :nod:
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: FoverF on November 21, 2011, 05:45:17
Like the Comanche right?  Too big to fail kind of thing?  Just a thought...

This is a valid point. But if 'too big to fail' actually exists, then the F-35 qualifies. It's biggest single arms procurement contract ever.

Quote
I know that this will meet resistance here but what about the idea of a new jet that is affordable in greater numbers (yes, F/A-18E/F, I am looking at you) where we buy twice as many for much less than the currently rising cost of the F-35 and then a fleet of Reaper/Preds with the remainder....
Interested to hear replies on this one. 

HH

Initial purchase cost is not the biggest factor here. Operating costs will outstrip acquisition cost very quickly.

Operating costs mainly of:

Fuel
Engine Overhauls
Manpower
Infrastructure

A larger fleet of Super Hornets is almost certainly going to be much more expensive on every one of those points. More airframes, with more engines, burning more fuel, with more air and ground crews.

I'm not saying F/A-18E/Fs are a bad idea, I'm just saying that we're unlikely to be able to afford more than 80 or so airframes regardless of what they are (with possible exception of the Gripen).
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: HeavyHooker on November 21, 2011, 09:07:21
Although initial purchase cost is not the largest factor here, it is a considerable one.  You make a good point but it is not like there is one large purse with F-35 cash in it. All of the points you mentioned come from different wallets from within that purse so it is not quite as cut and dry as your post.  But yes, in simple terms the fuel budgets would be higher and there would be more crews. 

I don't personally see the manpower (maintenance) budget increasing however since replacement parts for the F-35 would have to be considerably more expensive.  Also, Engine Overhauls and infrastructure shouldn't come in to play here since the existing infrastructure in Cold Lake and B-Ville are already equipped for 2nd and some 3rd line maint on the F/A-18s

HH
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: h3tacco on November 21, 2011, 11:59:13
This is a valid point. But if 'too big to fail' actually exists, then the F-35 qualifies. It's biggest single arms procurement contract ever.

Initial purchase cost is not the biggest factor here. Operating costs will outstrip acquisition cost very quickly.

Operating costs mainly of:

Fuel
Engine Overhauls
Manpower
Infrastructure

A larger fleet of Super Hornets is almost certainly going to be much more expensive on every one of those points. More airframes, with more engines, burning more fuel, with more air and ground crews.

I'm not saying F/A-18E/Fs are a bad idea, I'm just saying that we're unlikely to be able to afford more than 80 or so airframes regardless of what they are (with possible exception of the Gripen).

The most accurate statement on the F-35 O&M and support costs would be TBD. But according to a Finanical Times article in June 2011:


"For years Lockheed insisted that the running costs of the aircraft would be less than equivalents such as the F-16. But those numbers have fallen by the wayside. The Pentagon now expects the F-35 to cost about 33 per cent more than the F-16s it aims to replace." [Note this is specifically operating cost and not acquisition costs]

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/51ef654a-988f-11e0-94d7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1eM6RA23T

I think it is fair to say no one really knows if a fleet of Superhornets (or whatever fighter) would be more expensive to operate than a fleet of F-35s because no one knows the cost to operate the F-35.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on November 21, 2011, 15:51:56
Protecting future assets...

Quote
Donley Vows To Protect F-35, KC-46, Bomber

Nov 21, 2011
 
By Guy Norris 

LOS ANGELES — The U.S. Air Force will fight to protect key programs and capabilities from the drastic defense budget cuts being prepared by the congressional “super committee.”

Although the scale of these cuts is yet to be revealed, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley outlined nine key areas where core missions and capabilities will be protected from wholesale reductions. Speaking at the Air Force Association Global Warfare Symposium here, Donley lists the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, KC-46A tanker and “long-range strike family of systems, including the new bomber,” as vital to the Air Force’s goals of sustaining ongoing modernization and future air superiority.

Full article can be found here (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/11/21/01.xml&headline=Donley Vows To Protect F-35, KC-46, Bomber)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on November 21, 2011, 15:53:45
Meanwhile, on the testing front....

Quote
Lockheed Hits 2011 F-35 Test Targets Early

Nov 21, 2011
 
By Graham Warwick 

Lockheed Martin has passed its 2011 flight-test targets for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, with aircraft now flying at a pace that, if maintained, will allow the company to exceed its target for a significantly higher number of flights in 2012.

The test program completed its 875th flight for the year on Nov. 17, passing the full-year target of 872. A total of 6,809 test points were accumulated on those flights, exceeding the year-end target of 6,622, says J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed vice president for F-35 test and verification.

The rest of the article can be found here. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/11/21/02.xml&headline=Lockheed Hits 2011 F-35 Test Targets Early)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: cupper on November 29, 2011, 00:28:27
Whoosh! U.S. Navy F-35C gets electromagnetic launch

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-57332145-52/whoosh-u.s-navy-f-35c-gets-electromagnetic-launch/?tag=mncol;editorPicks

The U.S. Navy said today it has demonstrated the successful integration of two of its key next-generation sea-based strike programs--the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter, and the all-new electromagnetic aircraft launch system.
Both the F-35C fighter and the EMALS launch technology are expected to see service eventually aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford, the Navy's next-generation aircraft carrier, as well as other Ford-class carriers.

Site also contains pics and vids.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on November 29, 2011, 12:21:19
More eye candy,

First Production F-35 Arrival at Eglin AFB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nxY9BtK_qM
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Canadian.Trucker on December 01, 2011, 18:48:16
Here's a question, why are we replacing an original purchase of 138 CF-18's with 65 F-35's?  Even if we eventually decide upon a different aircraft (who knows, could happen), why are we purchasing less than even our current operational fleet.  Last I checked we have 80 CF-18's in service, which by my math puts a loss (through crashes, age, etc.) of approx 42% of the aircraft over a 29 year period.  So if we keep the status quo and things go relatively the same, by the time we are looking to replace the 65 aircraft we purchase, in 29 years we'll potentially be down to 44 aircraft.  And that's all based on a pure percentage number, if we go by pure numbers we'll be down to 7 planes.

This is ofcourse all hypothetical and my simple infantry mind attempting to comprehend the gods of the sky, but if there isn't a plan in place for a mid-life replacement of at least some planes, there could be big issues.  Am I wrong here?

Cost vs. capability is always an argument to be had, and I know other options of planes has been discussed at length.  I just don't want the CF having a reduced capability in terms of numbers of aircraft as in the long term I think it will bite us in the arse.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on December 01, 2011, 19:27:31
Here's a question, why are we replacing an original purchase of 138 CF-18's with 65 F-35's?  Even if we eventually decide upon a different aircraft (who knows, could happen), why are we purchasing less than even our current operational fleet.  Last I checked we have 80 CF-18's in service, which by my math puts a loss (through crashes, age, etc.) of approx 42% of the aircraft over a 29 year period.  So if we keep the status quo and things go relatively the same, by the time we are looking to replace the 65 aircraft we purchase, in 29 years we'll potentially be down to 44 aircraft.  And that's all based on a pure percentage number, if we go by pure numbers we'll be down to 7 planes.

This is ofcourse all hypothetical and my simple infantry mind attempting to comprehend the gods of the sky, but if there isn't a plan in place for a mid-life replacement of at least some planes, there could be big issues.  Am I wrong here?

Cost vs. capability is always an argument to be had, and I know other options of planes has been discussed at length.  I just don't want the CF having a reduced capability in terms of numbers of aircraft as in the long term I think it will bite us in the arse.

It's a fair point trucker but rather than looking at the purchase history of fighters maybe you could take a look at the purchase history of the Herc.

1960 4x   B model bought
1964 24x E model bought
1974 5x   H model bought
1985 3x   H model bought
1991 5x   H model bought
1997 2x   H-30 model bought
2010 17x J model bought

From:
http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/CF_CC130.html

Over fifty years the RCAF/CF/RCAF has purchased 60 Hercs with a flying fleet of 28 to 32 maintained.

My understanding of the F35 plan is that it is expected to continue in production the way that the Herc and F-16 have.

The F16's first flight was in 1974, 36 years ago.  The production lines are still open supplying Morocco, Turkey and Pakistan.  The USAF bought about 2500 alone.

I believe that rather than buying aircraft to sit in warehouses as replacements against aircraft that might fall out of the sky the intention is to buy a type of aircraft that it is expected will still be flying and in production 20 to 30 years out.  Then if an aircraft does develop falling leaf syndrome it could be replaced with a new one from the dealership.

At least that's the way I suspect the thinking goes.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on December 01, 2011, 21:36:50

I believe that rather than buying aircraft to sit in warehouses as replacements against aircraft that might fall out of the sky the intention is to buy a type of aircraft that it is expected will still be flying and in production 20 to 30 years out.  Then if an aircraft does develop falling leaf syndrome it could be replaced with a new one from the dealership.

At least that's the way I suspect the thinking goes.

At the new LRIP of 30 it looks like we will have lots of time.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on December 01, 2011, 22:18:35
Some eye candy about software and LRIP lots....Block 2 is about 80% complete and should be online during the first quarter of 2012.  It is also the beginning of all the fused sensors which will enable the F-35 to begin testing the DAS which, in my opinion, will set this platform apart from anything else out there.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 02, 2011, 10:58:12
I'm not sure this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, really amounts to anything but it does give the Good Grey Globe another lever to use against a programme which its editorial board dislikes:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-face-fresh-hurdle-with-us-call-to-slow-f-35-jet-production/article2257891/
Quote
Tories face fresh hurdle with U.S. call to slow F-35 jet production

GLORIA GALLOWAY
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update

Posted on Friday, December 2, 2011

The Conservative government’s purchase of 65 stealth fighter jets, which has been lambasted by the opposition, is likely to come under more fire after an American defence recommendation that delivery of the planes be delayed because of newly discovered cracks and “hot spots.”

Production of Lockheed Martin Corp’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter should be slowed because of problems that turned up during fatigue testing and analysis, the director of the Pentagon’s F-35 program says.

“The analyzed hot spots that have arisen in the last 12 months or so in the program have surprised us at the amount of change and at the cost,” U.S. Navy Vice-Admiral David Zenlet said in an interview with the Web-based publication AOL Defense.

The Pentagon program office confirmed the officer’s quotes on Friday.

“Most of them are little ones. But when you bundle them all up and package them, and look at where they are in the airplane and how hard they are to get at after you buy the jet, the cost burden of that is what sucks the wind out of your lungs,” Admiral Zenlet added.

“I believe it’s wise to sort of temper production for a while here, until we get some of these heavy years of learning under our belt and get that managed right,” he said.

The Pentagon currently plans to buy more than 2,400 F-35 aircraft in three models, at a cost of more than $382-billion.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, has ordered 65 of the jets – a purchase that been the target of opposition criticism because its untendered nature and escalating price tag. The costs of Ottawa’s fleet range between $16-billion and $30-billion, depending on the estimate.

The opposition has also pointed out that the initial operating system won't be equipped with a program that helps the fighters communicate with older aircraft, such as the Air Force's Aurora surveillance planes. And the jets apparently won’t be able to communicate in the Arctic.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay, a strong advocate of the F-35, has dismissed growing criticism of Canada's pledge to buy 65 of the planes as “clatter and noise.”

Earlier this week Matthew Kellway, a New Democrat MP from Toronto, asked the government how many Canadian bases will have to close to pay the true costs of the F-35s after Norway said the cost of its 52 of the jets will be $40-billion or more.

Julian Fantino, the associate Minister of National Defence, that his government's preference is to “put our trust in our pilots and materiel experts who know the importance of the F-35 program, which is producing the 21st century fighter our military needs while at the same time sustaining quality aerospace jobs across Canada.”

With a report from Reuters News Agency


It seems to me that all new development machines are plagued with glitches; why should the F-35 be different?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on December 02, 2011, 11:04:45
It seems to me that all new development machines are plagued with glitches; why should the F-35 be different?

It is not any different Edward. What is different though, is the use of LRIP to go ahead and produce aircraft anyways. As i mentioned many times here before, there will be a significant cost (and headaches) to make all those LRIP aircraft useful after the testing has uncovered all the problems. Instead of using prototypes to iron out the issues, the US has started serial production as it tests. Then it will be back to the drawing board to makes changes to the design and retrofit (if it is even possible depending on what needs to be changed) the aircraft that were done under LRIP lots. This will result in further delays down the production line.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: dapaterson on December 02, 2011, 11:12:06
One could observe that this same production method has been used on previous a Canadian fighter aircraft.

It didn't turn out that well for the CF-105 Arrow...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on December 02, 2011, 11:22:02
It is not any different Edward. What is different though, is the use of LRIP to go ahead and produce aircraft anyways. As i mentioned many times here before, there will be a significant cost (and headaches) to make all those LRIP aircraft useful after the testing has uncovered all the problems. Instead of using prototypes to iron out the issues, the US has started serial production as it tests. Then it will be back to the drawing board to makes changes to the design and retrofit (if it is even possible depending on what needs to be changed) the aircraft that were done under LRIP lots. This will result in further delays down the production line.

My gut feel is that the LRIP aircraft will become "loss leaders" per se, with the "loss" being the relative cost to remanufacture them (the LRIPs) once the FP configuration is finalized.  It may actually be more cost effective to strike the LRIPs from the operational fleet once FP block production hits "full speed".

It should be interesting to see what the Auditor General would say, a few years down the road, about other Canadian Forces aircraft capital projects that have programmed a relatively robust flight test program prior to final production configuration?

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: eurowing on December 02, 2011, 12:09:08
It may actually be more cost effective to strike the LRIPs from the operational fleet once FP block production hits "full speed".

There we go, our first pedastal F-35 will be on a stick way earlier than it took the CF18! Sweet!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Canadian.Trucker on December 02, 2011, 12:17:48
It's a fair point trucker but rather than looking at the purchase history of fighters maybe you could take a look at the purchase history of the Herc.

1960 4x   B model bought
1964 24x E model bought
1974 5x   H model bought
1985 3x   H model bought
1991 5x   H model bought
1997 2x   H-30 model bought
2010 17x J model bought

From:
http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/CF_CC130.html

Over fifty years the RCAF/CF/RCAF has purchased 60 Hercs with a flying fleet of 28 to 32 maintained.

My understanding of the F35 plan is that it is expected to continue in production the way that the Herc and F-16 have.

The F16's first flight was in 1974, 36 years ago.  The production lines are still open supplying Morocco, Turkey and Pakistan.  The USAF bought about 2500 alone.

I believe that rather than buying aircraft to sit in warehouses as replacements against aircraft that might fall out of the sky the intention is to buy a type of aircraft that it is expected will still be flying and in production 20 to 30 years out.  Then if an aircraft does develop falling leaf syndrome it could be replaced with a new one from the dealership.

At least that's the way I suspect the thinking goes.
Good point Kirk.  However, I still have an issue paying so much money at the start for so few aircraft.  Even if (and I hope they would) continue to purchase replacement aircraft as needed, I just think there could be more value to be had.  I know some aircraft that are less expensive are also older and not the newest generation, but reviewing usage, capability, money there are better options.  The actual discussion of which aircraft is better are in other threads, but $16billion+ for 65 aircraft is a hard pill to swallow.  In my mind this thing had better damn well be invincible for that cost.

Also the fact that the program hits multiple speedbumps as we progress further in is unsettling.  If more countries back out of the program our cost/unit continues to rise.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SupersonicMax on December 02, 2011, 12:21:33
Canadian.Trucker,

How much do you pay for your car?  Let say, 25 000$.  Well, this is the purchase price and doesn't include maintenance and the new garage you had to build because you don't want to leave it outside.  Well, the JSF is the same.  Except you need to train people, buy simulator, build specific infrastructure to house it (new security standards), etc etc.  So, 16B$ is not the price of 65 aircraft, but rather the price of buying and operating 65 aircraft for 20 years.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: dapaterson on December 02, 2011, 12:36:51
Canadian.Trucker,

How much do you pay for your car?  Let say, 25 000$.  Well, this is the purchase price and doesn't include maintenance and the new garage you had to build because you don't want to leave it outside.  Well, the JSF is the same.  Except you need to train people, buy simulator, build specific infrastructure to house it (new security standards), etc etc.  So, 16B$ is not the price of 65 aircraft, but rather the price of buying and operating 65 aircraft for 20 years.

A minor correction.  There is the $9B in acquisition costs (including, but not limited to, infrastructure, tooling and spares), and $7B incremental for operating costs - that is, $7B over and above the current operating cost of the CF-18 fleet.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Canadian.Trucker on December 02, 2011, 12:41:44
Canadian.Trucker,

How much do you pay for your car?  Let say, 25 000$.  Well, this is the purchase price and doesn't include maintenance and the new garage you had to build because you don't want to leave it outside.  Well, the JSF is the same.  Except you need to train people, buy simulator, build specific infrastructure to house it (new security standards), etc etc.  So, 16B$ is not the price of 65 aircraft, but rather the price of buying and operating 65 aircraft for 20 years.
True, I understand that.  The F-35 is an amazing aircraft that I believe is a good choice for the RCAF for the long term because of it's capabilities and that it means we're getting brand new technology to bring us into the middle of the 21st century.  I don't support the idea that the program was sole-sourced because of the fact we were involved in the project since literally day 1.  I guess in my mind when it comes to equipment there's gotta be a balance of quantity and quality, and while we're potentially getting a lot of quality, we're not getting the quantity.

A minor correction.  There is the $9B in acquisition costs (including, but not limited to, infrastructure, tooling and spares), and $7B incremental for operating costs - that is, $7B over and above the current operating cost of the CF-18 fleet.
True, thanks for the correction, I guess I shouldn't lump it all together.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on December 02, 2011, 12:54:09
that is, $7B over and above the current operating cost of the CF-18 fleet.

As the fleet gets retired, the operating cost for the fleet may go up depending on the age of the Hornets, or it may go down which I'm more inclined to believe since there will be fewer airframes in service.

By the time we receive our full complement of F-35's, the handful of Hornets which will remain active will have much lower operating costs than the 80 which we currently fly.

So while it is over and above the operating costs of the Hornet fleet, the Hornet fleet will be significantly lower in number than at present which will reduce the overall operating costs of the fleet.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: dapaterson on December 02, 2011, 13:03:24
No.  Based on current estimates, if the Hornets cost $X to operate, the costs over 20 years of flying the F-35 will be 20 times $X plus $7B.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on December 02, 2011, 13:11:24
I guess in my mind when it comes to equipment there's gotta be a balance of quantity and quality, and while we're potentially getting a lot of quality, we're not getting the quantity.

Keep in mind that we have the option to purchase airframes at a later date for the same price as the new ones which we are going to buy.  That has everything to do with being involved with the program since its inception.

Quick thought to you about quality and quantity.  Imagine, if you will, that you have the option to buy two iPods which have a storage capacity of 16Gb each with a very slow video capability OR an iPod with 50Gb of storage and a kick *** video capability but it costs 50% more than the smaller capacity iPod.  Chances are you'll buy the one that will run you a little more but which comes with greater capabilities and features.

Apply that to the JSF vs. Super Hornet argument, and you'll see why we need fewer F-35's, with their DAS array, stealth technology, and greater weapons systems to do the job instead of a higher number of F-18F's which, while a good aircraft, don't have the ability to compete with the F-35 when it comes to all the variables I've just listed.

Hopefully that helps you a bit...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Canadian.Trucker on December 02, 2011, 13:19:30
Keep in mind that we have the option to purchase airframes at a later date for the same price as the new ones which we are going to buy.  That has everything to do with being involved with the program since its inception.
Good point.

Quick thought to you about quality and quantity.  Imagine, if you will, that you have the option to buy two iPods which have a storage capacity of 16Gb each with a very slow video capability OR an iPod with 50Gb of storage and a kick *** video capability but it costs 50% more than the smaller capacity iPod.  Chances are you'll buy the one that will run you a little more but which comes with greater capabilities and features.

Apply that to the JSF vs. Super Hornet argument, and you'll see why we need fewer F-35's, with their DAS array, stealth technology, and greater weapons systems to do the job instead of a higher number of F-18F's which, while a good aircraft, don't have the ability to compete with the F-35 when it comes to all the variables I've just listed.

Hopefully that helps you a bit...
It does help, and I do understand that the F-35 being a 5th generation fighter is more advanced and better equiped than the F-18 Super-hornet and F-16.  And like I said I know it's a great choice for the RCAF, but for the budget the CF is given to play with I just find only 65 F-35's for the size of Canada and what may be our future roles in combat, NORAD commitment and defence of Canada I wish we were buying more.  Just a personal feeling, and that equates for me for the CF as a whole.  I wish we were buying more ships, vehicles etc.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on December 02, 2011, 13:31:41
Canadian.Trucker,

How much do you pay for your car?  Let say, 25 000$.  Well, this is the purchase price and doesn't include maintenance and the new garage you had to build because you don't want to leave it outside.  Well, the JSF is the same.  Except you need to train people, buy simulator, build specific infrastructure to house it (new security standards), etc etc.  So, 16B$ is not the price of 65 aircraft, but rather the price of buying and operating 65 aircraft for 20 years.

Max I read somewhere recently that the F-35 flies like many contemporary jets but it is in the technology that it stands above it's competitors. Thoughts ?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on December 02, 2011, 13:33:12
the 65 x F-35's will actually do a lot more than the current CF-18 fleet because of the additional missions it can fly like ISR & EW.

Nice to know the F-35 Test Program is working and producing the results needed to move on from LRIP.  That finding engineering and technical issues is normal in aviation seems to be lost on the aviation ignorati that we hear from regularly.

Good balanced view here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/25/us-usa-defense-fighter-idUSTRE7AO1AT20111125

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on December 02, 2011, 14:38:51
No.  Based on current estimates, if the Hornets cost $X to operate, the costs over 20 years of flying the F-35 will be 20 times $X plus $7B.

Is there any Departmental information stating definitively that the $7B in-service support Vote 1 monies associates with the NGFC/F-35 project is INCREMENTAL to existing fighter force Vote 1 National Procurement/ISS resource levels?

Looking at the RPP 2011-2012 Planned Departmental Spending (http://www.vcds-vcemd.forces.gc.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=10407) figures for Aerospace Readiness of $2.33B for 2011/2012, decreasing slightly to just below $2.0B for following years, a "guesstimate" of approximately 40% of Aerospace Readiness going towards the overall CF188 capability (O&M and ISS/NP) would equate to an existing $0.8B annual cost.  If that estimate is "retained" over the future 20-year period, it alone would result in the accounting capture of $16B of equivalent existing CF188 readiness and maintenance costs.

Two extremes in potential budgetting exist for F-35 20-year life-cycle costs, then: a) $7B is entirely incremental, or b) $7B is a complete subset of the anticipated future expenditures of $16B (est.) for the in-service support plan (ISSP).

a) results in $32B (CY - current year) for a 20-year NGFC programme costs of [$9B capital acquisition, $16B baseline ISSP, $7B incremental F-35 related ISSP], or

b) results in $25B (CY) for 20 years of F-35 . [$9B capital acquisition, $16B ISSP ($7B of which has been pre-identified as being required by F-35)]

My "non-fighter guy" gut feel looking at other program numbers is that the F-35 program does have some ISS-related "overlap" with the current CF188 ISSP, so the numbers would come in somewhere between those extremes, likely in the $28-30B range over the 20-year period.

 :2c:

Regards,
G2G
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on December 02, 2011, 15:14:04
  That finding engineering and technical issues is normal in aviation

Of course it is normal. Thats not the key issue. Finding significant issues with an aircraft in LRIP has significant implications for long-term full production. As G2G said, it may end up being more cost effective to scrap LRIP lots after FP starts but if the changes are that significant, the redesign would add extensive delays to FP aircraft.

The recent rounds of structural issues with the F-35 are a direct result of the weight-shedding program that had to be implemented a while back.

Quote
aviation ignorati

A group which i am not a member of.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on December 02, 2011, 17:57:12
.....

It should be interesting to see what the Auditor General would say, a few years down the road, about other Canadian Forces aircraft capital projects that have programmed a relatively robust flight test program prior to final production configuration?

......


Whatever was done, it will have been wrong.   >:D

Happy auditors are scarce.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on December 02, 2011, 19:01:30

Whatever was done, it will have been wrong.   >:D

Happy auditors are scarce.

They do have a job to do, and the taxpayer in me understand that and actually appreciates it.  I've worked with the AG's folks on a number of occasions and I must say that the folks were nothing but professional.  They provided me numerous opportunities to confirm that they were getting the gist of what I was describing.  In my experience, when they report on things, the issues that are brought up are more often than not, very valid.  if anything, the weakest points in most AG reports is getting the detailed context right that, realistically, only those folks deeply involved in a project may ever see -- what that means though, is that the AG and their team often gets the perspective that captures the intent of the regulations that should ensure accountability and appropriate use of funds on behalf of the taxpayers, and that's what should be #1.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on December 02, 2011, 21:42:19


The recent rounds of structural issues with the F-35 are a direct result of the weight-shedding program that had to be implemented a while back.



Haven't heard that . . . do you have a source for that claim?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on December 02, 2011, 21:46:19
Haven't heard that . . . do you have a source for that claim?

I'll try and find it again, i have it in paper form somewhere here at home. I can't recall the actual numbers but the F-35 design had to shed weight a few years back. My contention is that this has resulted in the structural issues ( some at least) we are seeing today.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: cupper on December 02, 2011, 22:09:48
I'll try and find it again, i have it in paper form somewhere here at home. I can't recall the actual numbers but the F-35 design had to shed weight a few years back. My contention is that this has resulted in the structural issues ( some at least) we are seeing today.

I seem to recall seeing or hearing something along those lines as well.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on December 03, 2011, 12:00:01
Wouldn't be surprised if someone somewhere made the claim.

All aircraft design is a weight/strength tradeoff.  Can't recall a plane that hasn't been initially over design weight and lots of very successful aircraft have had fatigue or cracks or whatever.

Nothing to worry about . . .  been there done that.

It will be such a wonderful day when there are CF-35 squadrons lined up on Canadian ramps.

The RCAF is getting close to being modernized.  130J's, C17's, new Chinooks, new maritime choppers, updated patrol aircraft . . hopefully the FWSAR decision soon.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on December 03, 2011, 14:04:43

All aircraft design is a weight/strength tradeoff. 

Yes, i know. I'm a fair bit past "aviation 101".
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on December 03, 2011, 16:18:42
Good thread on the topic over at F16 net

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16493-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-0.html

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on December 04, 2011, 08:50:08
and another view . . .

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2011/12/f-35-and-crackpots-of-doom.html

Don't know what the heck is happening . . . . 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on December 06, 2011, 13:49:28
Regardless of what we might like or not, if the F-35 or CF-35 are cancelled, we will be in a world of hurt.

My idea of a plan "B" or "C" would be to get two seat "Super Hornets" but outfit the backseat for controlling swarms of UAV's, UCAV's and drones like the MALD. Aircraft like the X 47 and X-45 can deal with the actual penetratiomn and striking of targets, while the MALDs provide the distraction.

The main reason I see the Super Hornet as the control aircraft is it is also fast and manoueverable enough to evade attempts to down it (and it can also fight back when needed), unlike a large AWACS type platform, and being close to the swarm, can have better situational awareness than a controller in a remote location like Nevada or (say) Cold Lake operating through a satellite link.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on December 06, 2011, 14:47:54
I'll try and find it again, i have it in paper form somewhere here at home. I can't recall the actual numbers but the F-35 design had to shed weight a few years back. My contention is that this has resulted in the structural issues ( some at least) we are seeing today.

The F-35B STOVL variant was in danger of missing performance requirements in 2004 because it weighed too much – reportedly, by 2,200 pounds (1,000 kg) or 8 percent. In response, Lockheed Martin added engine thrust and thinned airframe members; reduced the size of the common weapons bay and vertical stabilizers; re-routed some thrust from the roll-post outlets to the main nozzle; and redesigned the wing-mate joint, portions of the electrical system, and the portion of the aircraft immediately behind the cockpit. Many of the changes were applied to all three variants to maintain high levels of commonality. By September 2004, the weight reduction effort had reduced the aircraft's design weight by 2,700 pounds (1,200 kg).

Pretty interesting article on the entire weight loss matter here. (http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/weight_watchers.html?c=y&page=1)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on December 06, 2011, 22:43:24
The competing Boeing XF-32 also failed the STOVOL tests due to being somewhat overweight.

It is too bad Boeing did not continue to run a parallel program even after the competition was lost (looking to capitalize on foreign sales, perhaps), a working F-32 would provide some choices and flexibility for the world's air forces today. Plan "E" might be to ask the Phantom Works to produce 65 F-32's as a batch production run (similar in manner to the way the F-117 was produced). The F-117 was produced on time and under budget, very surprising considering the experimental nature of the entire aircraft, so there is a precedent to go by.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: FoverF on December 07, 2011, 16:37:49
The competing Boeing XF-32 also failed the STOVOL tests due to being somewhat overweight.

It is too bad Boeing did not continue to run a parallel program even after the competition was lost (looking to capitalize on foreign sales, perhaps), a working F-32 would provide some choices and flexibility for the world's air forces today. Plan "E" might be to ask the Phantom Works to produce 65 F-32's as a batch production run (similar in manner to the way the F-117 was produced). The F-117 was produced on time and under budget, very surprising considering the experimental nature of the entire aircraft, so there is a precedent to go by.

The F-117 was produced in complete secrecy, without government supervision, without political imperatives to use certain suppliers,  no industrial regional offset benefit packages, and using unlicensed technology from their competitors.

Canada?

Canada can't even get an off-the-shelf aircraft on-time and on-budget.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on December 08, 2011, 09:09:15
Canada can't even get an off-the-shelf aircraft on-time and on-budget.

These don't count?

CC-177
CC-130J
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on December 08, 2011, 13:46:54
These don't count?

CC-177
CC-130J


...don't forget CT144C's (CL-604) as well.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: dapaterson on December 08, 2011, 13:49:36
To be fair, the CC-177 wasn't on budget.






It was under budget.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on December 09, 2011, 19:37:16
Hot off the press...

The 21 A variants - the first in the LRIP 5 batch - will cost approx. $126M a copy and are expected to be completed in January 2014.

Quote
Lockheed Gets $4 Billion for 30 F-35s

The Pentagon just gave Lockheed Martin a $4 billion contract for 30 early production model F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. The batch of planes, officially known as Low Rate Initial Production lot-5 (LRIP-5), was originally supposed to include 35 jets. However, the Pentagon cut the deal to 30 aircraft due to cost increases and delays in the fighter’s development program.

The Air Force gets 21 F-35As, the Navy gets six F-35C carrier variant jets and the Marines will get three F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) jets.

http://defensetech.org/2011/12/09/lockheed-gets-4-billion-for-30-f-35s/

EDIT  - I put $26M/copy, should have been $126/copy.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on December 09, 2011, 19:44:14

The 21 A variants - the first in the LRIP 5 batch - will cost approx. $26M a copy

+ $10-13 Million for the engine.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on December 09, 2011, 20:14:15
Not sure yet, there's some terminology in the release that I don't understand, aid me?

Quote
provides for associated ancillary mission equipment
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on December 09, 2011, 20:20:23
Not sure yet,

The engines are not included as they are GFE - Government Furnished equipment.


 
Quote
there's some terminology in the release that I don't understand, aid me?

Sounds like smaller mission subsystems required for the flight test program.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on December 09, 2011, 20:27:09
The engines are not included as they are GFE - Government Furnished equipment.

Sounds like smaller mission subsystems required for the flight test program.

Thanks on both counts.

Looks like they'll be producing less than one complete platform a month with greater software and mission subsystems which would explain the higher cost.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on December 10, 2011, 17:03:04
F-35A Goes to Mach 1.6 and 9.9G's (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3acd242f57-3030-4871-b60b-764c1213fb1a&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

I guess Mr. Sweetman must be concerned....hehe

While the speed and g loading are great news, this was my favourite part of the article:

Quote
Griffiths has also been in the driving seat, literally, for the start of full-up mission system testing in the F-35A. Initial sensor fusion between the EW systems and radar “went pretty well,” says Griffiths. “We have had the DAS (distributed aperture system) running on the aircraft for the first time, providing 360 deg. coverage. You can see right through the aircraft which is wild,” he comments. The DAS is an internally mounted, multi-functional sensor for air-to-air and air-to-surface targeting capability. “It’s pretty cool and sort of feels like Wonder Woman’s invisible jet. The DAS is working well and enables you to pick up things you wouldn’t normally be able to see because the system’s apertures work at different wavelengths to the human eyeball. It can see details that with your eyes you cannot see, for example on overwater flights looking along the coastline you can pick out details of buildings much more clearly,” he adds.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on December 10, 2011, 17:14:31
DAS is probably the most promising part of the entire F-35 program. If the F-35 were to come to an end, DAS would continue in other in-service platforms.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: HeavyHooker on December 10, 2011, 17:41:51
So if the Americans are starting to cut their #'s because of cost over-runs ($136-140M/copy with engines), I wonder if we may do the same.

Looks like one of two options: - cut numbers of copies or bump up the budget (political suicide over a jet very few John Q Public want in the first place).

HH
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on December 10, 2011, 19:47:10
So if the Americans are starting to cut their #'s because of cost over-runs ($136-140M/copy with engines), I wonder if we may do the same.

Looks like one of two options: - cut numbers of copies or bump up the budget (political suicide over a jet very few John Q Public want in the first place).

HH

Or by fewer now and more later - once the budget allows, after other defence priorities (like CSCs and AORs and MPAs) have been addressed, and the public only has to swallow another 4 aircraft a time at 500 MCAD a set. 

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on December 10, 2011, 23:37:39
Or by fewer now and more later - once the budget allows, after other defence priorities (like CSCs and AORs and MPAs) have been addressed, and the public only has to swallow another 4 aircraft a time at 500 MCAD a set.

Although I have not seen anything official on an MPA replacement project as of yet. So I am wondering if its even in the cards for the next decade or so.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on December 11, 2011, 01:08:42
If iPods were hand built at a rate of one a month, they would cost millions of dollars a pop as well.

Maybe the solution is to do the recreate the "Willow Run" factory and start churning these things out on a production line basis, and use economy of scale to drive down costs. All the "extra" F-35's could be marketed to friendly nations like India, or held in reserve as war stores and replacement aircraft for the inevitable accidents and out of service aircraft of the various air forces.

This will also provide some momentum, as consortium nations like Canada, the UK and so on see the numbers of planes for sale rising and the costs falling, they may be inclined to bulk up their fleets as well.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: hauger on December 14, 2011, 07:37:53
Interesting Read:

Trillion-Dollar Jet Has Thirteen Expensive New Flaws
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/joint-strike-fighter-13-flaws/ (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/joint-strike-fighter-13-flaws/)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on December 14, 2011, 09:41:21
Oh my gawd . . .  "flaws" in a new aircraft.  Never happened before, ever in the history of aviation development. 

Guess the Japanese are dumb, because they just bought into the F-35 program.

"Japan has chosen the Lockheed Martin F-35 in the F-X competition, Japanese newspapers report, citing government sources. A decision will be formally made on Friday, Dec. 16."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awx/2011/12/13/awx_12_13_2011_p0-405601.xml&headline=Tokyo%20Chooses%20F-35,%20Local%20Media%20Report%20&channel=defense

Can't wait for our intrepid media to calculate how much  this additional production of F-35 aircraft will lower their cost, because they are very fats of the mark to constantly bleat about how much more the F-35 will cost if the production run is lowered.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: hauger on December 15, 2011, 07:14:08
Haletown: I take it your an F-35 supporter?  Yes, new airplanes have problems.  The issue is not what these problems are, but what the fixes mean in terms of cost/time.  To use a car analogy, these problems aren't the type that get fixed at the dealership (on delivery) like a sunroof rattle, but inherent flaws in design that need engineers to rethink the various systems and tweak the designs.

In any event, Japan has delayed the decision to purchase that you quoted (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-japan-fighter-idUSTRE7BD1I220111214 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-japan-fighter-idUSTRE7BD1I220111214))
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on December 15, 2011, 11:50:53
I think the real issue is everyone has been painted into a corner.

There are no other "Generation 5" aircraft on the market, and very few companies that could even attempt to make them. If we go to the Super Hornet we are accepting a design that dates back to the 1970's, and even the Eurofighter Typhoon or SAAB Gripen comes from the 1980's, which means that by the expected retirement date of 2030 these planes will be 50 to 60 year old designs.

Even "Banana Republics" got rid of their P-51 Mustangs in the 1960's or early 1970's; at some point there is only so much that can be done with upgrades (and there were proposals for turboprop conversions of Mustangs that could carry 20mm cannon and missiles on underwing hard mounts...).
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: 1984 on December 15, 2011, 11:59:08
Some vague wording by the PM has this blogger reading between the lines (or grasping at straws; you be the judge):

http://blogs.canada.com/2011/12/14/did-harper-leave-himself-some-room-to-manoeuvre-on-the-f-35/ (http://blogs.canada.com/2011/12/14/did-harper-leave-himself-some-room-to-manoeuvre-on-the-f-35/)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on December 15, 2011, 12:27:44
Haletown: I take it your an F-35 supporter?  Yes, new airplanes have problems.  The issue is not what these problems are, but what the fixes mean in terms of cost/time.  To use a car analogy, these problems aren't the type that get fixed at the dealership (on delivery) like a sunroof rattle, but inherent flaws in design that need engineers to rethink the various systems and tweak the designs.

In any event, Japan has delayed the decision to purchase that you quoted (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-japan-fighter-idUSTRE7BD1I220111214 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-japan-fighter-idUSTRE7BD1I220111214))

A  supporter in the sense there is no other single aircraft available that comes close to its capabilities and I  support it because I believe we can afford and should procure top level, modern equipment for our Forces.  Buying aircraft that are approaching obsolescence just because they are available now is a fools game.

Don't get me wrong, the F-35 program is in complexity class that is unique and the program has some serious engineering issues.  I'm not doing a pollyanna thing here, but I have a reasonable degree of faith in LM's engineering staff being able to resolve the issues.

I couldn't agree more that the F-35 program has engineering issues, some no doubt quite challenging.  That is the norm in the aviation world and yet every issue on the F-35 is presented as a program ending flaw.  Every review and report is cherry picked for the Killer Quote that can be taken out of context and used to hyperventilate a negative column or three.

And yes, I concur that that the Japanese have "delayed" the announcement of their F-35 purchase . . .  delayed until next week according to the article you linked to.   A delay that I can live with as it gives our media more time to digest the impact a now larger production run will have on reducing the price of the F-35.  I am sure they will report this, just like the endlessly report that the F-35 will cost more if the USA doesn't buy as many and the total production run was to be reduced.

There are much bigger political games being played out by the powers that be and the  generation and leaking of reports is all part and parcel of the Grand Game in the US Congress and the DOD budget in-fighting.  Competing political, institutional  and business interests play hardball and provide the media with a never ending series of gotcha stories.






Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on December 15, 2011, 16:27:20
Matthew Fisher gets it . . . . 


http://www.canada.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Canada%2Blocked%2Bmatter%2Bcost%2Banalysis/5866021/story.html

not sure about his price comparison to the F-18 & Typhoon are accurate but the article is a breath of fresh air.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on December 15, 2011, 16:39:59
Matthew Fisher gets it . . . . 


http://www.canada.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Canada%2Blocked%2Bmatter%2Bcost%2Banalysis/5866021/story.html

not sure about his price comparison to the F-18 & Typhoon are accurate but the article is a breath of fresh air.

Not a bad article but, again, media standards for fact-checks are low:

Quote
C-17 Galaxy transports.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on December 16, 2011, 10:11:28
Good summary of the recently leaked Concurrency Report.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-f-35-concurrency-reaches-turning-point-366056/


"The panel concluded that the F-35 in fact faces no technical issue that would trigger a recommendation to halt all new production. Instead, it recommends that the DoD continue building production aircraft as flight-testing continues, albeit at a reduced level."

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: NavyShooter on December 16, 2011, 10:23:51
I'm just wondering what would happen if Boeing put their XF-32 back in the game on their own....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on December 19, 2011, 11:56:01
I'm just wondering what would happen if Boeing put their XF-32 back in the game on their own....

Boeing shareholders would likely revolt  :nod:
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: NavyShooter on December 19, 2011, 12:01:40
True enough....but part of the reason that Boeing was in the game was to build their jets cheaper....which seems to be something that hasn't happened with the F-35.

NS
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Sythen on December 20, 2011, 07:51:18
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111219/japan-agrees-to-buy-f-35-fighters-to-replace-aging-jets-111219/

Quote
TOKYO — Japan's government says it has selected the Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth fighter to bolster its aging air force.

A Cabinet spokesman says the defence ministry will buy a total of 42 fighters starting next fiscal year, which begins in April.

Japan wrangled for years over whether to buy the F-35, Boeing F-18 or the Eurofighter Typhoon. Japanese officials took into account the quality of the plane as well as close U.S.-Japan military ties, said Noriyuki Shikata, deputy Cabinet secretary for public relations.

The F-35, also called the Joint Strike Fighter, is the Pentagon's biggest weapons procurement program and has support from allies including Britain, Australia, Canada, Israel and several European nations.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on December 27, 2011, 22:08:00
F-35 production a troubling example of Pentagon spending
By Walter Pincus, Published: December 26
There are 56 F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters being assembled at Lockheed Martin’s facility in Fort Worth. But because only 20 percent of the testing for the most advanced fighter-bomber in U.S. history is completed, each will probably have to get million-dollar-or-more fixes later.

The F-35 is already the most costly U.S. weapons program underway at about $385 billion. But that figure may go higher with overrun of the per-plane contract price for the 56 craft being assembled — along with the future multimillion-dollar fixes likely to be required for them — and the 15 F-35s completed but not yet delivered to the military services.

The plane is being built with the most sophisticated stealth technology, but initial flight tests have turned up hot spots and cracks associated with metal and composites used on most new aircraft. The development of the software controlling the F-35’s major warfighting functions, the most complex ever planned for an airplane, has been delayed so that the last block will not be introduced to the aircraft until at least June 2015.

Earlier this month, Vice Adm. David J. Venlet, executive officer for the F-35 program, said in an interview with the online service AOL that he recommended slowing down current production lines to reduce the replacement costs that will be necessary in aircraft produced before testing is completed.

Production had already been slowed twice. Then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates pushed back the building of 122 aircraft in February 2010 as problems became apparent, and again in January as he lowered near-term production for another 124 planes, boosting future production needs.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took the Senate floor on Dec. 15 and described the F-35 fighter program as “a mess.”

What upset the senator was not just that the cost of each plane had risen nearly 100 percent from its original estimate of $69 million to $133 million today, or the fact that testing was only 20 percent complete while more than 90 planes had already been bought, or the fact that software — key to 80 percent of the stealth plane’s warfighting capability — wouldn’t be ready for another four years.

It was, he said, that the Pentagon had “sold this program as a fifth-generation strike fighter that would — more so than any other major defense procurement program — be cost-effectively developed, procured, operated and supported.”

McCain faulted the Pentagon for using what he called “a concurrent development strategy to procure a high-risk weapon system.” Production of the first airplanes began as testing was in its infancy.

McCain said the Pentagon was attempting “generational leaps in capability” but at the same time moving before the underlying design was stable. Developing needed technologies and being able to integrate them remain risky and manufacturing processes are still “immature,” he said.

A Government Accountability Office report from April said the forecast was for “about 10,000 more [engineering design] changes through January 2016.” The GAO added, “We expect this number to go up given new forecasts for additional testing and extension of system development until 2018.”

Making this initially a cost-plus contract was “a recipe for disaster,” according to McCain, who noted that development costs alone have topped $56 billion.

At a time when government discretionary budgets — including defense — face sharp reductions over the coming decade, the F-35 story is a troubling example of Pentagon spending.

By January, when the new Defense Department budget will go up to Capitol Hill, it is expected that the current cost estimate per F-35 will again increase, while production will be slowed to limit future fixes.

At the beginning of the program, there were to be 3,000 F-35s built, since it would replace the fighter-bombers in each of the three services and also be sold to foreign allies.

For the Air Force, the conventional takeoff and landing F-35A would replace the F-16 and the A-10 and add to the stealth F-22A. The Navy’s version, the F-35C, was to be carrier-suitable and complement the F-18E/F Super Hornet. The Marines wanted the F-35B, a short takeoff and vertical landing version, to replace the F/A-18C/D and AV-8B Harrier aircraft.

In March 2004, when development problems caused the Defense Department to extend time and increase projected costs, the Navy and Marine Corps cut their number of the planes by 400, reducing the total U.S. purchase to 2,457.

The Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission in December called for eliminating the Marine Corps vertical-lift version, which has had serious development issues, and canceling 600 planes planned for the Air Force and Navy, using instead new F-18s or F-16s. The panel’s reasoning: The Pentagon “does not need an entire fleet with the stealthy capabilities” provided by the F-35.

In his new book, “The Wounded Giant,” Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon calls for cutting the overall purchase to 1,250, canceling the more costly Navy version, reducing the Marine Corps F-35Bs by 10 percent or more, and limiting the Air Force to 800 F-35As. The difference would be made up by buying more F-16s and recognizing the role of unmanned aircraft.

There is a cautionary tale to be found in what happened to the F-22. When concept development of that stealth fighter began in 1986, the Soviet Union was the enemy and the Air Force needed 750 of the planes for the air-to-air superiority mission. By 1991, when the first development contract was signed, the Soviet Union had collapsed . By 2006, the Air Force cut its needs to 381 F-22s and added air-to-ground attack and intelligence-gathering capabilities.

In 2009, faced with several crashes and other problems, plus the oncoming F-35, Gates limited the purchase to 187 F-22s. Reasons given for ending the F-22 program were cost overruns and budget restraints.

Ironically, the last F-22 came off the Lockheed assembly line just two weeks ago and is to be delivered to the Air Force next year. Considered a more capable air-to-air combat fighter than the F-35, F-22s have been sent to the Pacific, where their intelligence-gathering is considered useful. Air Force testimony on Capitol Hill in May put the cost of the last F-22s at $153.2 million per aircraft and noted that upgrades were still being made to the plane’s software.

Changes in the 20 years between 1986 and 2006 caused a reduction of almost half the original F-22s sought. We should expect no less to happen between now and 2021. Prepare for that by limiting the F-35 purchases and looking into new technologies to plan what the future mix of manned and unmanned aircraft could be to meet the threats of 2031.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/f-35-a-troubling-example-of-pentagon-spending/2011/12/23/gIQAGINIJP_story.html?tid=pm_pop

Seems fairly straightforward but not so much when Fantino or Mackay do the talking.

MacKay and Fantino’s F-35 Communications Disconnect: Fantino Says There is A Plan B For the F-35 Purchase But He Doesn’t Reveal It. Meanwhile, MacKay Contradicts Fantino
Links to, or articles by this person are not allowed at Milnet (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,99046.msg1015748.html#new) Link to reporter removed by Staff


Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on January 03, 2012, 15:55:11
So we'll end up with Super Hornets as a stop gap against any possible delay in F-35 acquisition...sure beats buying Typhoons at $150M a copy which will be retired in 2030 anyways.

After all, the two platforms - JSF's and Supers - are said to complement each other.

There isn't any other plane out there that meets the requirements set out in the SOR (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro-pro/ngfc-fs-ft/or-bo-eng.asp), and once production numbers of the aircraft are increased we'll see a lower cost platform that has significantly better air to ground capabilities than the Raptor and with sensor fusion capabilities which will allow for sharing of battlefield data with our allies on an even higher level than they currently do.

When you combine that with Super Hornets variants (-F, -G), Canada will finally have a multi purpose fleet which will bring fast air back to the prominent level a country like Canada needs.

And along the way we get new FWSAR, TAC Hel, et cetera...after all, one can't rely on 50 year old platforms forever....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on January 05, 2012, 09:28:13
Just stumbled upon this video and decided to share.  :)

F-35B initial sea trial
http://www.yuma.usmc.mil/videos/videos.html
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PuckChaser on January 05, 2012, 14:08:09
Just stumbled upon this video and decided to share.  :)

F-35B initial sea trial
http://www.yuma.usmc.mil/videos/videos.html

Nice and smooth landing. On a side note, I love the mess menus at Yuma (right side of window at link)! Everything sounded tasty.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: HeavyHooker on January 06, 2012, 13:36:33
Not sure if this should be posted in a different thread but this is a very interesting article on F-35 vs X-47B (UCAV).  I am not going to farm for quotes either way but to have Super Hornets and X-47Bs when they come fully online sounds like the ideal to me.  Have a read...


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/planes-uavs/are-pilots-or-robots-the-future-of-naval-aviation
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on January 06, 2012, 23:23:09
Quote
  United Technologies Corp., Pratt & Whitney Military Engines, East Hartford, Conn., is being awarded a $1,122,306,649 not-to-exceed undefinitized modification to a previously awarded advanced acquisition contract (N00019-10-C-0005).  A total of $358,597,078 is being obligated at time of award.  The contract includes both fixed price incentive and cost plus incentive contract line items.  This undefinitized modification provides for the Lot V Low Rate Initial Production of 21 F135 Conventional Take Off and Landing (CTOL) Propulsion Systems for the Air Force; 3 Short Take-off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Propulsion Systems for the  Marine Corps; and 6 Carrier Variant (CV) Propulsion Systems for the Navy.  In addition, this modification provides for production non-recurring effort, non-recurring autonomic logistics effort and recurring sustainment effort for the U.S. Services and Cooperative Partner Participants.   Work will be performed in East Hartford, Conn. (67 percent); Bristol, United Kingdom (16.5 percent); and Indianapolis, Ind. (16.5 percent), and is expected to be completed in February 2014.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was not competitively procured.  This contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($520,650,335; 46.3 percent); Marine Corps ($387,099,090; 34.5 percent); Navy ($166,710,445; 14.9 percent); and the Cooperative Partner Participants ($47,846,779; 4.3 percent).  The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md. is the contracting activity.

http://www.defense.gov//contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4693

Comes to:

CTOL = $24,792,873 each
STOVL = $129,033,030 each
CV = $27,785,074 each

Quote
This LRIP contract includes production engines, spare parts, program management, engineering support for production, sustainment and field support for the F135 engines.

http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=6433&h=Pratt%20&%20Whitney%20Awarded%20$1.12Bn%20Contract%20for%20F135%20Engine%20from%20US%20DoD
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on January 08, 2012, 19:29:05
Italian troubles...........

http://theaviationist.com/2012/01/06/defense-cuts/

Quote

F-35 targeted in potential military cuts. If Italy quits, will the stealth plane ever be affordable?

With a new set of austerity measures aimed at saving up to $25 billion to balance the budget by 2013 (and avoid a catastrophic default that would put the entire Euro-zone at risk) just approved, Italy could be soon compelled to review many of its future defense projects.

Even if the new Defense Minister, Adm. Di Paola pointed to a significant cut in terms of personnel, as the most important measure to preserve Italy’s capability to sustain current projects as well as internal and foreign missions, the amount of lawmakers among all political forces who advocate further weapon cuts has grown in the last few days.

The priority targets for cuts this days have been already identified: the Lockheed Martin F-35, that the Italian Air Force and Navy would like to use to replace the AMX, the Tornado and the AV-8B+ Harrier fleets (in other words, the only air-to-surface assets Italy can employ in Crisis Support Operations); and the Cavour, the second and most modern Italian aircraft carrier destined to be equipped with the much troubled F-35B, the STOVL (Short Take Off and Vertical Landing) version of the Joint Strike Fighter.

Dealing with the F-35, Italy has planned a purchase of 131 F-35s, worth about 15 billion Euro. Of those, 20-22 are supposed to be the Harrier replacement on the Cavour while the rest should be conventional A planes. The Air Force is interested in both the A and B version.

Both right and left-wing parties are becoming more critical about Italy’s involvement in the F-35 program arguing that the stealth fighter is a waste of money for a country on the verge of financial collapse. In their opinion, Italy should leave the program and lose the 2.5 billion Euro already invested in the development to save the 13 needed for production. Furthermore, “Italy is not about to attack anyone”, hence there is no need for such an expensive defense investment.

More or less the same words were used to criticize the aircraft carrier, that costs the Italian taxpayers 100,000 Euro each day (when docked; 200,000 Euro/day when on cruise).

For sure, the F-35 is a costly and uncertain program. However, some of its problems and delays deals with the advanced technology that this innovative aircraft integrates. Hence,  the decision to quit the program should be weighed heavily. If this aircraft survives, it will be the backbone of the U.S. attack fleet, replacing several aircraft types; if Italy confirms its involvement procuring “some” F-35s, it will have the opportunity to develop, operate and evaluate the future most advanced (and costly) combat plane.

Sooner or later Italy will be compelled to replace its ageing fleet of attack planes. Even if one of the Lessons Identified in Libya was the need for a light and cheap aircraft like the AMX to sustain long lasting air wars, current planes can’t live forever nor can be continuously upgraded to keep them in service for 3 or 4 decades.

When the moment arrives, there won’t be many options. One of them is using an upgraded Typhoon, a multirole non-stealth fighter plane of the so-called 4+ generation that, when required to replace the above mentioned Italian attack planes, will have to face 5th if not 6th generation manned and unmanned stealth fighters made of morphing metals and flight surfaces featuring some Star Wars-like equipment.

Nor the problem of replacing the Harriers on the Cavour should be underestimated. Since all the former RAF jump jets were purchased by the USMC, there will be few options if Italy quits: either second or third-hand AV-8Bs or a navalised Typhoon like the one offered to India (provided this version will ever be developed and compatible with the Italian ship).

Above all, Italy should remember how much the decision to keep the F-104 in service for 40 years has cost to the Italian Air Force, equipped with a jurassic fighter almost useless in real operations not even capable to ensure an effective air defense service at home. When it became evident that the amazing Starfighter could not be updated any more two gap fillers had to be hired until the Eurofighter Typhoon became available. A costly and painful move.

Although it’s still unclear whether Italy will simply downsize its procurement or withdraw from the program, what’s certain is that every canceled Italian plane will increase the costs of the remainder making their unit price if not unaffordable, less affordable.

Unit price depends also on the foreign sales. U.S. have commitments from allies to buy as many as 500 jets. Moreover, Japan has selected the F-35 as the future F-X and Lockheed Martin will build 42 stealth planes for the JASDF, a breath of fresh air that would be completely wiped out by an Italian withdrawal.

The Economist has already warned that the program is in danger of slipping into the “death spiral” where increasing unit costs would lead to cuts in number of ordered plane, leading to further costs that would boost order cuts.

In the meanwhile, the average price of each plane in “then-year” dollars has risen from $69m in 2001 to $133 million in 2011, a price that has been already declared unaffordable by Pentagon’s top weapons buyer Ashton Carter who talked to the Senate Armed Services committee in May 2011.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on January 09, 2012, 00:16:33
What everyone who is thinking of pulling out of the F-35 program has to answer is what aircraft can be purchased to fill the capability gap that will be left?

the F-35 STOL trials were interesting, considering the small size of the USS Wasp compared to conventional aircraft carriers. Various navies have small "Harrier carriers" or helicopter carriers in service, this version of the F-35 would provide even small navies with a big seaborne punch, if they were willing to invest the resources for a new capability.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on January 09, 2012, 15:33:14
Next Generation Fighter Capability
Project Management Office
(NGFC PMO) (http://atlanticalliance.ca/userfiles/file/JSF%20Program%20Overview%20-%20Project%20Management%20Office,%20M_Slack%20-%20DND.pdf)

Enjoy some reading, and have a gander at Page 9!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Colin P on January 11, 2012, 12:47:26
What everyone who is thinking of pulling out of the F-35 program has to answer is what aircraft can be purchased to fill the capability gap that will be left?

the F-35 STOL trials were interesting, considering the small size of the USS Wasp compared to conventional aircraft carriers. Various navies have small "Harrier carriers" or helicopter carriers in service, this version of the F-35 would provide even small navies with a big seaborne punch, if they were willing to invest the resources for a new capability.

While this seems to be the most problematic of the versions, the aircraft it would replace has always been a bit dicey as well. As a niche role this might be where the F-35 shines and be worth the costs.
I am having serious doubts about it's more conventional role. As I see it the main selling point is the sensor system and weapon control system. The aircraft itself without the above is not that much of a leap ahead other than a lesser radar profile.
I guess one of the questions to be asked is what is the cost difference between a Super Hornet and F35 both equipped with the same level of sensors and weapon systems? Or what does the airframe of the F35 bring to the table that another aircraft can't for cheaper?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PuckChaser on January 11, 2012, 12:55:37
We don't know how much those sensor/weapons systems cost. To retrofit a Super Hornet it might cost more than the F35 outright. Radar profile and sensor/weapons systems seem to be where upgrades are being had.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Colin P on January 11, 2012, 13:21:58
It would not surprise me if Boeing was already looking at producing a model of Super Hornet with the same level of sensor arrays and fire control as the F35, it would be a smart business move I suspect. As  I understand it even the first F-35's won't have the full package for at least 5 years after delivery.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on January 11, 2012, 15:11:34
It would not surprise me if Boeing was already looking at producing a model of Super Hornet with the same level of sensor arrays and fire control as the F35, it would be a smart business move I suspect. As  I understand it even the first F-35's won't have the full package for at least 5 years after delivery.

Super Hornet international roadmap.........
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Colin P on January 11, 2012, 17:56:36
Link and quote removed, as they refer to David Pugliese (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,99046.msg1015747.html#msg1015747).
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on January 11, 2012, 18:00:06
That is only part of the future development plan for the Super Hornet and is certainly a good place to start integrating more advanced sensors without the risks of retrofit to the existing SH design. With the international roadmap, the SH design is already in flux and open to customer requests. If we wanted DAS in a SH.............
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on January 12, 2012, 12:03:18
Super Hornet international roadmap.........
More on that here (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/11/04/02.xml&headline=Boeing%20Reveals%20Details%20Of%20International%20F-18), FYI:
Quote
Engineers from U.S. behemoth Boeing are offering further glimpses into the so-called “international road map” variant of its F-18 Super Hornet, starting with its two shoulder-mounted conformal fuel tanks (CFTs) and numerous Enclosed Weapons Pods (EWPs).

The details are emerging as Boeing and rival Lockheed Martin, with its Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), move from being cut out of the Indian Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft and look to non-JSF partners like Japan for new business.

Several other air forces also are looking around for new fighters and will evaluate not only radar and avionics performances, but also how the fighters fare in both beyond-visual-range and close combat. Boeing has been promoting F-18 improvements under its international road map concept since last year, but it continues to dribble out more information as potential non-U.S. customers like Japan are targeted.

Along those lines, Boeing’s concept for a newer Super Hornet is intended to improve the basic airframe in terms of thrust/weight ratio, acceleration, agility, maneuverability, combat persistence, low-observable characteristics and sensor capabilities.

As Aviation Week & Space Technology and sister publication Defense Technology International have reported this year, to extend the F-18’s range without having to carry drag-inducing underwing fuel tanks, the new Super Hornet could rely on two CFTs. According to a preliminary calculation of a Super Hornet fitted with two CFTs and a belly-mounted conventional, external fuel tank, the aircraft would have the same combat radius that now only can be achieved with three external tanks. This is partly due to the position of the CFT’s center of gravity (CG), which is relatively close to the aircraft’s CG. The placement also cuts the amount of trim work and trim drag generated by the horizontal stabilizers.

Furthermore, the CFTs should not require modification of the flight control software, Boeing says, although confirmation will not come until wind tunnel and flight testing are carried out. The first test efforts are to be completed by the end of year with another round in 2012, the engineers say.

Along with the CFTs, Boeing also has been promoting replacement of the F-18’s wing and fuselage pylons and hardpoints with Enclosed Weapons Pods (EWPs), each of them able to host four AIM-120 missiles, a 2,000-lb. bomb or two 500-lb.-class weapons ....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on January 17, 2012, 06:02:24
Ok, that i didn't see coming.....

(note the "partial mistake" in the first paragraph. I say "partial" because the USMC is indeed getting a small quantity (80) of the C-model)

http://rt.com/news/f-35-design-flaw-917/

Quote
A design flaw in the US Marine Corps version of the F-35 Lightning II, which prevents it from landing on an aircraft carrier, could see the highly advanced vehicle grounded indefinitely.

The F-35C, also known as the carrier variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (CV JSF), is one of several fifth-generation fighters developed under the JSF program. New documents reveal that the aircraft has a crucial flaw, which could prevent it from ever being able to land on a vessel.

A Pentagon Concurrency Quick Look Review (QLR) of November 2011 says that all eight run-in/rolling tests undertaken at NAS Lakehurst in August 2011 to see if the F-35C could catch a wire with the tail hook have failed. The tail hook is meant to catch one of several wires stretched across the deck, after which a special arresting engine kicks in to quickly slow the aircraft down.

In the case of the F-35C, the decades-old trick doesn’t work. The tail hook is located too close to the main landing gear, so the springs supporting the arresting cable don’t have enough time to raise it after the wheels run over it for the hook to engage.

In fact, the F-35C has the shortest distance between the tail hook and the wheels among a dozen past and current aircraft deployed by the US Navy, the report says, making the CV JSF “an outlier.”

The flaw seems to be inherent to the design, and engineers simply cannot relocate the hook without a major overhaul of the construction, which is likely to be too costly for today’s cost-conscious Pentagon. At the same time, Lockheed Martin, which produces the F-35, said as early as 2007 that all variants of the vehicle were “mature and ready for production.”

Other major problems with the F-35 the QLR mentions are the high latency of the helmet-mounted display, fire hazards associated with emergency fuel-dumping, and the low reliability of the novel Integrated Power Package unit.

Constant delays and the skyrocketing costs of the F-35 program make it look like a money pit, according to industry experts. The total development costs of F-35 have exceeded $40 billion and are expected to reach some $56 billion by late 2016. Former US defense secretary Robert Gates expressed the Pentagon's frustration and even mentioned the possibility of the cancelation of the program.

The average cost of the F-35 jet has risen to $156 million and the cost estimates for 2,443 aircraft the US intends to purchase is $382 billion.
The US is the primary customer and financial backer of the pricey program, but the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark contributed over $4 billion towards the development costs of the program.

In 2011, after the US military had stated that "no country involved in the development of the jets will have access to the software codes," Turkey put on hold its planned purchase of 100 F-35 jets. All other states taking part in the program also expressed dissatisfaction with that unilateral US decision. The UK specifically indicated they might cancel its entire order of F-35s without access to the coding.

A total production quantity of around 3200 is planned for the F-35 program, of which 2443 are intended for the US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.
The F-35 is being built in three different main versions to suit various combat missions: the F-35A, a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) model intended for the US Air Force and other air forces; the F-35B, the short take-off and vertical landing model of the aircraft; and the F-35C, a carrier model that features larger wings with foldable wingtip sections.

A fourth model, the F-35I, is an export version for Israel with unique Israeli features installed in them. The US had reportedly agreed to allow the Israelis to install their own electronic warfare systems and missiles in their F-35s in the future.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on January 17, 2012, 19:32:03
Now THAT sounds like an Ooops  :-[

Mayhap the Marines are going to win out after all and convert the Navy to VTOL  >:D.  Cunning people these Devil Dogs.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on January 17, 2012, 20:26:40
Now THAT sounds like an Ooops  :-[


Or the usual suspects are twisting & torquing a story on a subject they know little about . . . because that's what the do to attract eyeballs.

interesting thread on the F-35 tailhook and tailhooking in general.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-16571.html

I think they'll get it all sorted out . . .  just another  day, another issue in an aircraft test program.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: CBH99 on January 17, 2012, 20:30:24
How in the hell, after spending almost $400 BILLION dollars on the aircraft design/testing, does Lockheed Martin just now realize there is a crucial design failure?? 

Landing on carriers is nothing new, and hasn't been new for quite some time.  How in the heck can you spend over a decade designing, building, testing, and developing the "next generation" of fighter aircraft - yet overlook something so basic??

I know, I know...I'm not an aircraft designer.  And yes, on that account, I am out of my lane - as are most of us.  But seriously??  Really??

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on January 17, 2012, 23:31:59
Navy Times (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/dn-design-blamed-for-f35c-tailhook-issues-011712/)

Quote
Lockheed Martin has traced the Navy F-35C Joint Strike Fighter’s troubles with catching a carrier’s arresting gear wires to the tailhook design.

Efforts to fix the problem are well underway, a top company official said.

“The good news is that it’s fairly straight forward and isolated to the hook itself,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 program. “It doesn’t have secondary effects going into the rest of the airplane.”

Quote
Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said the claim that the F-35C could never land on a ship was always highly dubious.

“They turned the YF-17 into a carrier plane, why couldn’t they correct carrier-hook problems here?” he said. “This does not appear to be a killer problem.”

Flight testing is designed to uncover and fix problems with a new aircraft, Aboulafia said.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on January 18, 2012, 12:14:15
Much the same sorts of things appeared in the press during the F18 development and testing phase.

We were getting "lemons" that we would never need and the costs were exploding exponentially through the roof like skyrockets launched by overspending drunken sailors etcetera etcetera etcetera ad nauseum along with the usual assortment of tired cliches.

Many of the "latest show-stoppers" of the time had been identified and corrected a year or so before they were reported as such by idiotic journalist-experts.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: dapaterson on January 18, 2012, 12:28:09
Much the same sorts of things appeared in the press during the F18 development and testing phase.


And didn't the US Navy already have a Tailhook scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailhook_scandal)?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Pte Cherry on January 19, 2012, 09:22:26
Anybody know anything on the alternate engine design that we are looking at in order to make ours uniquely Canadian like we do to just about everything else?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Hamish Seggie on January 19, 2012, 09:42:41
Anybody know anything on the alternate engine design that we are looking at in order to make ours uniquely Canadian like we do to just about everything else?

Good thing I didn't have anything in my mouth while I read this......

While I've refrained from commenting on this thread for a while as I am not an aeronautical engineer nor a pilot, he does have a point. We take something and mod the hell out of it til it barely resembles what we bought.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: cupper on January 19, 2012, 21:21:52
Good thing I didn't have anything in my mouth while I read this......

While I've refrained from commenting on this thread for a while as I am not an aeronautical engineer nor a pilot, he does have a point. We take something and mod the hell out of it til it barely resembles what we bought.

Like everything that came out of Bombardier during the 80's.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: cupper on January 19, 2012, 21:24:30
Anybody know anything on the alternate engine design that we are looking at in order to make ours uniquely Canadian like we do to just about everything else?

I know the US cancelled funding for a second engine for their program. John Boehner kinda got caught on that one since a majority of the work was going on in Ohio.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on January 19, 2012, 21:32:30
Fantino:  Lookit the Canadian benefits....
Quote
The Honourable Julian Fantino, Associate Minister of National Defence, today visited two British Columbia companies receiving additional work as a direct result of the Government of Canada’s decision to participate in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Minister Fantino helped mark important production milestones in the multinational development of new state-of-the-art F-35 stealth fighter fleets at Avcorp Industries Inc. in Delta and Advanced Integration Technology (AIT) in Aldergrove.

“Canada’s decision to participate in the Joint Strike Fighter Program is resulting in additional opportunities for Canadian workers that otherwise would not have existed – including right here in British Columbia,” said Minister Fantino. “I am pleased to join the skilled Canadian workers at AIT and Avcorp today whose world-class expertise is having a direct impact on supporting our country’s long tradition of contributing to international stability alongside our allies.”

In July 2010, Avcorp Industries Inc. announced a contract with BAE Systems Operations Ltd. to manufacture the outboard wings for the F-35 Carrier Variant that will now be shipped to Lockheed Martin’s assembly line in Fort Worth, Texas. Meanwhile, Advanced Integration Technology (AIT) Canada is responsible for producing the Electronic Mate and Assembly System (EMAS) that ensures the precise fusion of the wings and major parts of the plane’s body during the aircraft’s assembly. The positioners are being shipped to the production facility in Italy. AIT has delivered seven sets of positioners which are currently in use at Lockheed Martin’s production facility in Fort Worth, Texas ....
DND/CF Info-machine news release, 19 Jan 12 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4067)

More in the Backgrounder (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4066):
Quote
.... Industrial Participation

Since 1997, Canada has been involved in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter program’s phases of development, design and initial production. In 2006, the Government of Canada signed the Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development Phase Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In this MOU, the partners agreed to implement a best-value approach to maximize industrial benefits and affordability of the JSF program for partner countries. Because Canada is a member country, Canadian companies are among those eligible to bid on the work packages that flow from this project. Canadian companies must continue to offer competitive technologies at competitive prices to be successful.

Industry Canada has signed proprietary industrial participation plans with the F-35 prime contractors (Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney). These industrial participation plans meet the Government of Canada’s objective of encouraging foreign industry to establish long-term relationships with Canadian industry. Industry Canada continues to work with industry and the
F-35 prime contractors to pursue opportunities related to the aircraft's production and sustainment.

In addition to providing access to competitive opportunities, the industrial participation plans identify strategic industrial opportunities for Canada that build on Canadian strengths in the areas of landing gear maintenance, composite manufacturing, hard metals machining and complex structure assembly.

Benefits to Canada

Canada has made payments of just over US$200 million to the F-35 JSF program; and, since 2002, this investment has led to approximately US$370 million in contracts with some 65 Canadian companies. This is nearly a two-to-one return on Canada’s investment to date.

This program provides Canada with an unprecedented opportunity for long-term and high‑quality work in the aerospace and defence sectors. Benefits include work opportunities from partner nation aircraft acquisitions worldwide, in addition to other non-partner countries that replace their aging fighter fleets. Canadian industrial participation in the F-35 JSF program is not limited to the work associated with the Canadian aircraft; Canadian companies will contribute to the manufacture and service of aircraft.

The work packages available for Canadian companies will include not only the manufacturing and assembly of parts, but also servicing, repair, simulation, and training, in addition to numerous other sustainment activities over the life of the aircraft. And there will be even more opportunities as the industrial benefits from the multinational F-35 JSF program continue to flow to Canadian companies throughout the operational lifespan of the worldwide fleet.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on January 20, 2012, 17:11:58
Quote
Kelly says he also expects to begin testing a redesigned tailhook for the F-35C in the second half of the year. The current design encountered problems last year when officials attempted rolling tests and the tailhook skipped over the wire owing to its weight and a problem with the dampening system. CF-3 will be the first test aircraft to have the new tailhook installed.

After the initial ship trials with the F-35B last fall, the B model is not expected to go to sea until 2013, with the C model following in 2015, Kelly said.

Quote
Aircraft BF-4 is now operating the Block 1A software and BF-5 is using the 1B software package. Kelly said the Block 2 software, which will be used by the Marine Corps to declare operational capability, is not expected at Patuxent River until late this year.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2012/01/20/awx_01_20_2012_p0-416683.xml&headline=Panetta%20Lifts%20F-35B%20Probation&next=10
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on January 21, 2012, 18:01:30
Fantino:  Happy to see the U.S. continue backing the STOL/VL version (F-35B), even if we're not buying that one....
Quote
The Honourable Julian Fantino, Canada’s Associate Minister of National Defence, welcomes United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s announcement that the United States is renewing support for the development of the F-35 Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (F-35B) variant.

“Yesterday’s announcement is welcome news for Canada and our allies’ participation in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter development program,” said Minister Fantino. "We are contributing to the development of a new, state-of-the-art aircraft that the Royal Canadian Air Force agrees gives them the best probability of success for many years to come."

While Canada is not purchasing this particular variant of F-35 aircraft, the Government of Canada's decision to participate in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter program allows Canadian aerospace workers to benefit from additional work in development of all three variants ....
DND Info-machine, 21 Jan 12 (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4071)

More on Panetta taking the F-35B off hold, so to speak, this week here (http://bit.ly/wvvkaf).
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on January 26, 2012, 20:20:41
Quote
The federal government is reviewing Canada’s planned purchase of up to 65 F-35s after U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta confirmed Thursday his country will be slowing production on the troubled stealth fighters.

Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino said in a statement the government is still committed to the F-35 program, but that he had ordered defence department officials in Ottawa to investigate what implications the Pentagon’s decision would have on Canada.

“We continue to monitor the progress of the multinational joint strike fighter program closely and exercise responsible stewardship of taxpayers’ hard earned dollars,” Fantino said. “That is why I have instructed officials to review the implications of the United States’ announcement on Canadian Forces’ readiness so that they may be incorporated into preparations for the replacement of our aging CF-18 fleet.”

Panetta did not give any specifics about the delays as he addressed reporters in Washington, but previous reports had indicated the Pentagon would be putting off production on as many as 179 F-35s over the next five years, starting with 13 fewer in 2013.

“It’s a program that remains essential for the future of our superiority,” Panetta said. “But in this budget what we’ve done is slowed the procurement to allow for more testing and development.

“We want to make sure before we go into full production that we are ready.” ....
Postmedia News, 26 Jan 12 (http://blogs.canada.com/2012/01/26/u-s-to-slow-f-35-procurement-as-billions-get-slashed-from-defence-budget/)

Remarks from Associate Minister Fantino (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4077) (highlights mine):
Quote
The Honourable Julian Fantino, Canada's Associate Minister of National Defence, today made the following statement following United States Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's announcement to slow procurement of the United States' order of F-35 Lightning II in line with their plans to reduce government spending. This announcement does not affect the original number of aircraft being purchased by the United States."Today's announcement by the United States confirms their commitment to the F-35 project which will meet the fighter aircraft requirements of more than ten partner nations for the 21st century.

"Canada welcomes the United States' ongoing commitment to the multinational Joint Strike Fighter Program. This commitment by the United States is consistent with my discussions with Secretary Panetta at the Halifax International Security Forum last fall.

"This prudent measure by the United States is one that fully respects the strong partnership our allies have formed throughout our participation in this development program.

"We are pleased that less than eight percent of the United States' order will be re-profiled to a later production date, and that all partners continue to exercise responsible management of their priorities amid challenging global economic realities."Canada remains committed to the Joint Strike Fighter program and development of the new state-of-the-art aircraft that our brave men and women agree will give them the best probability of mission success well into the 21st century. We continue to monitor the progress of the multinational Joint Strike Fighter Program closely and exercise responsible stewardship of taxpayers' hard earned dollars.

"That is why I have instructed officials to review the implications of the United States' announcement on Canadian Forces' readiness so that they may be incorporated into preparations for the replacement of our aging CF-18 fleet.

"Information we have received indicates that the impact on Canada's procurement plans is minimal at this stage. As has been the case up to the present, we will continue to monitor developments closely.


"Our decision to participate in the multinational development of new state-of-the art aircraft for Canada and our allies is resulting in additional opportunities for Canadian workers that otherwise would not have existed. Canadian workers' world-class expertise is having a direct impact on supporting our country's long tradition of contributing to international stability alongside our allies."
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MCG on January 26, 2012, 20:49:13
Conceivably, the impact of the US slowing its procurement rate could be forgein procurements slipping ahead of US purchases (ie. Canada and other international partners becoming able to receive their airframes earlier).
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Pte Cherry on January 27, 2012, 05:19:39
The reason they are slowing down procurement is not because of price tag of the plane itself. They will get just as many as they were originally planning to. This way they wont have to upgrade them. As you know there is already plans for new software and and hardware upgrades. This way when they roll out of the factory in 5 years they will be at the desired state instead of patching the development problems they are still having.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on February 01, 2012, 08:22:56
Associate Minister Fantino reminds the Liberals who got the F-35 train rolling in the first place - highlights mine....
Quote
Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, India just held an open and transparent competition for its next generation of fighter jets. Here is what a country gets when it holds an open and transparent competition: one, it gets a state-of-the-art jet to meet its own mission needs; two, it gets the best possible jet at the best possible price; and three, it gets a huge boost to a brand new aerospace industry.  Why is the government so afraid of an open and transparent competition?   

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, there was a very significant competition. However, the rhetoric from the member opposite is irrefutable evidence of his party’s hypocrisy.  The Liberals initiated Canada’s involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program in 1997 and in so doing committed $100 million to get it started. Now they have cold feet and want to turn their backs on our men and women in the military and abandon a tool that is critically necessary to the Canadian military.
Hansard (Commons), 31 Jan 12 (http://tinyurl.com/hansard-31jan12-f35-2)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Kalatzi on February 03, 2012, 01:34:57
Parachute problem grounds some Lockheed F-35 jets

lin k here http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/30/us-lockheed-fighter-pentagon-idUSTRE80T1S120120130?ESRC=sm_deftech.nl

"It estimated that it would take about 10 days until the first set of repacked parachutes were available."  Initial cost estimates for the repacked chutes are $2. Billion each.  >:D

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on February 03, 2012, 11:16:15
...Initial cost estimates for the repacked chutes are $2. Billion each.  >:D

Really?  You're going to mess around with an otherwise objective post, and add you own flavour of misinformation masquerading as humour? 

Adding a smilie to an inane comment doesn't do anything to enhance others perception of your legitimacy...


Regards
G2G
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 03, 2012, 12:26:26
Where will our Canadian F-35 pilots get their transitional (or whatever the AF calls it) training?

We have recently moved for the Winter season and are now a couple of miles from Luke AFB which is in the mix for the F-35 training mission. Luke does F-16 now.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 03, 2012, 14:53:17
Where will our Canadian F-35 pilots get their transitional (or whatever the AF calls it) training?

We have recently moved for the Winter season and are now a couple of miles from Luke AFB which is in the mix for the F-35 training mission. Luke does F-16 now.

It's been proposed that the original transitional training will take place involving an international training centre, already constructed at Eglin Air Force Base by manufacturer Lockheed Martin, as the main option under consideration.

Having said that, there has been no official decision made on the matter as yet.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 08, 2012, 22:45:10
So more news on the JSF front. Italy has bought it's first 3 planes, but take a look at what they say about cost when compared to the Eurofighter which they currently have in service!

Quote
Italy buys its first three F-35s. With a shocking announcement: “a JSF will cost less than a Eurofighter Typhoon”

On Feb. 7, 2012, Gen. Claudio Debertolis, head of the agency that is responsible for the procurement of new armaments, has announced that Italy has already ordered the first three Lockheed Martin F-35s.

Unit price: 80 million USD.

Talking to the lower house’s defense commitee, Debertolis explained that these first planes will cost more than the rest of the fleet since costs are going to decrease as the program, currently in Low Rate Initial Production,  continues. The Italian high rank officer is particularly optimistic, as he believes that the unit price will be around 70 million each (Lockheed Martin estimates 65M USD for the F-35A and about 73M USD for the F-35B), less than the 79 million USD currently paid for the Eurofighter Typhoon and much less of the 121 million USD per aircraft anticipated in 2011.

Quite surprising, since unit price is one of the JSF partner’s main concern, but possible, considering also that the Typhoon has just lost India’s mother of all tenders based on price.

Although there’s no official commitment yet, the initial requirement for Italy foresaw 131 examples (69 conventional take-off and landing F-35As and 62 of the short take-off and vertical landing variant F-35Bs). Debertolis confirmed that determining how many aircraft Italy will purchase is not a current task, since it will depend on the Defense Budget Review. Nevertheless, even if the number of aircraft will be much lower than the initial 131, the MoD will work to make sure that the industry will get the expected compensation.

Italy is working on stretching deliveries and slowing purchase  “a much easier task than that with the Eurofighter program, since the F-35 procurement is modular therefore delays don’t imply increasing costs” Debertolis said.

Furthermore with the recent Eurofighter defeat in India, Italy is going to stop working on the Typhoon and “divert” part (if not all) of its workforce towards the F-35, being assembled at the Cameri FACO (Final Assembly and Check Out) facility.

Finally, Debertolis has confirmed that Italy will have both A and B variants, with the STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) ones serving both the Air Force and the Navy, that will use them on the Cavour aircraft carrier.

In spite of the widespread criticism surrounding the program and the global financial crisis it looks like the F-35 has, if not a bright future ahead, at least good chances to survive the austerity measures of the new Monti’s technocratic cabinet.

http://theaviationist.com/2012/02/08/f35-typhoon/
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 08, 2012, 23:18:12
Even some Italians seem still to believe in the LockMart tooth fairy:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2012/02/06/awx_02_06_2012_p0-421701.xml&headline=Kendall:%20Early%20F-35%20Production%20a%20Mistake

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-lockheed-fightertre8151ic-20120206,0,3098488.story

http://www.courant.com/business/hc-armed-services-questions-f35-problems-20120207,0,6545530.story

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-lockheed-britain-f35tre8160zb-20120207,0,5389820.story

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 09, 2012, 06:49:32
Hey Mark, where's your article in defence of SAR and how the SAR process works which would show some defence of the SAR crew currently being barraged out in Newfoundland....?

Or are you just a policy wingnut, who has no real idea about how things work in the military?

Perhaps you'd like to analyse the following link and the myriad number of errors that occurr in it, thus showing how illogical one of the groups opposed to the F-35 purchase is...unless, of course, you agree with their position....

Quote
Joint strike fighter program a 'failure': think tank
DAVID ELLERY
08 Feb, 2012 11:40 AM

Some of the most vehement critics of Australia’s involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program had their day in the sun on Tuesday afternoon when they testified before a high level parliamentary defence committee.
Representatives of anti-JSF think tank Air Power Australia and RepSim Pty Ltd were given an hour to make their case before the defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.

By the time the group was 30 minutes into its presentation at least five of the committee members had left the room.

Remaining committee members, including Opposition defence spokesman Senator David Johnston, were told the JSF program was a failure, the planes only had limited stealth capability and that they were compromised by the use of a core design to produce three different variants; a conventional land based plane, a short take off and landing variant that will replace the US Marine Corps’ Harrier jets and a carrier version.

Air Power Australia wants the Australian Government to abandon the JSF and, instead, exert pressure on the US Government to scrap the program in favour of having Lockheed Martin re-open its F-22 Raptor production line and make that plane, arguably the world’s best air superiority fighter, available to the international partners.

``We’re building the wrong aircraft,’’ spokesman Peter Goon said.

Independent analysts say this is unlikely to ever happen – and that the F-22 was never released for foreign sales in any case.

Senior Defence officials, who have been aware of the Air Power Australia claims for some time and give them little credence, are not expected to take Tuesday’s presentation lying down. It is understood a formal response could be made to the committee around the middle of next month.

Mr Goon said the STOVL F-35B variant imposed weight and performance limits on the other two aircraft. ``It is the aerial equivalent of Herpes; it just keeps on giving.’’

He was equally disparaging about the Boeing Super Hornet, the plane favoured by Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, to stand in for the JSF if there are further delays in the stealth fighter program.

Judging from the number of questions, the remaining committee members found the segment of the presentation detailing computer simulations of a hypothetical 2018 air battle between either 240 F-35s, 240 F-22 Raptors or 240 Super Hornets and an equivalent number of Sukhoi SU35s off the coast of Taiwan the most interesting.

It was claimed only 30 F-35s would survive as against no survivors for the Super Hornet force and 139 survivors for the F-22 force.

Senator Johnston said the claims were interesting but stressed it was important the committee be provided with the assumptions on which the simulation was based so it could be assessed with some degree of accuracy.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/national/national/general/joint-strike-fighter-program-a-failure-think-tank/2448416.aspx?storypage=1
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on February 09, 2012, 08:24:04
who has no real idea about how things work in the military?


Your military experience is what again ? You have a real idea how things work do you ?

I don't mind giving Mark a hard time, i do it regularly, but i don't think your own position is all that strong to say that to someone.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 09, 2012, 09:08:14
Your military experience is what again ? You have a real idea how things work do you ?

I don't mind giving Mark a hard time, i do it regularly, but i don't think your own position is all that strong to say that to someone.

You're right, I have no military experience.

And it is because of that lack of experience and knowledge that I make a conserted effort at attempting to understand things.  Hence why every time I send a story to print it goes to the Wing and Squadrons involved to make sure that it is accurate and that the content is not breaking any form of OPSEC.

But I realise that my statement may have been out of line, so I apologise to Mark and to those who thought it may have been a cheap shot.

I'd still like to see his response to the article that I posted.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on February 09, 2012, 09:20:36
I make a conserted effort at attempting to understand things. 

I have always known you to do exactly that. I was not implying that you were doing things any other way.

Anyways, as for the italian F-35, this is the part that says it all to me :

Quote
The Italian high rank officer is particularly optimistic, as he believes that the unit price will be around 70 million each

What is "beleived" is one thing.....what will happen is entirely another.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 09, 2012, 10:23:56
I have always known you to do exactly that. I was not implying that you were doing things any other way.

I appreciate that, and I understand that you weren't implying that - it would appear I'm still making strides in distancing myself from the "average" journalist/reporter/lacky maybe? that regularly write about the military...not an easy thing to do.  Hopefully the Communications program I'll be starting this September will help.... :nod:

Anyways, as for the italian F-35, this is the part that says it all to me :

What is "beleived" is one thing.....what will happen is entirely another.

Would it be a safe assumption to believe that Italy, being a Level II partner in the program, may receive a lower per unit cost than other participants in the program?

And with regards to the piece outlined above, is it just me or are the folks at APA just out on a political mission to have the US reconsider its policy on F-22 sales?  Their hatred of everything non Raptor is pretty interesting to say the least.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: GAP on February 11, 2012, 10:10:26
Italy To Cut Back On F-35 Jet And Navy Frigate Orders - Report
Article Link (http://www.nasdaq.com/article/italy-to-cut-back-on-f-35-jet-and-navy-frigate-orders---report-20120210-00135)

ROME -(Dow Jones)- Italy will scale back planned purchases of the F-35 joint strike fighter as well as frigates, Corriere della Sera reports Friday, without saying where it obtained the information.

In a detailed article, the Milan-based daily said Italy would reduce its planned EUR15 billion purchase of 131 F-35 fighter bombers, made by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT), to 100 or at most 110.

Defense Minister Giampaolo di Paola last month in a television interview defended the procurement program but said there might be some cuts as Italy slashes public spending to balance its budget by 2013. The U.K. Defense Ministry is postponing its final decision on how many F-35 planes to buy.

Italy'sFinmeccanica SpA (FNC.MI) has key roles in both the F-35 and the Eurofighter, a rival project that Corriere said may not proceed.
 More on link
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on February 11, 2012, 10:14:39
Would it be a safe assumption to believe that Italy, being a Level II partner in the program, may receive a lower per unit cost than other participants in the program?

Despite the progress made in 2011, i don't think it is safe to assume anything at this point.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 11, 2012, 11:40:39
Anyone have thoughts on what may come out of the meeting??

Quote
Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier, and U.S. officials who run the $382 billion weapons program are anxiously preparing for a meeting in Australia in mid-March where the partners -- Britain, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Australia, Turkey and Canada -- will outline their revamped procurement plans.

Quote
Canada has tentatively scheduled a meeting of the partners at its embassy in Washington before the Australian meeting to get an update on the program and better coordinate their approach.

Quote
Each U.S. restructuring has consequences for the partners, which have already chipped in hundreds of millions of dollars for development of the fighter, which was sold as an affordable way to replace a dozen older jets in use around the world.

"The situation is increasingly becoming a fiasco. People are pulling out, pulling back ... reassessing what they're going to do," Matthew Kellway, a legislator with Canada's opposition New Democratic Party, told Reuters on Friday.

He said the Pentagon had given Canada every reason to step back, by stepping back itself.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/U-S-F-35-production-slowdown-rb-4157286973.html?x=0
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on February 11, 2012, 12:25:18
"People are pulling out, pulling back ... reassessing what they're going to do,""

Right.  Tell that to the Japanese. 

The Ottawa Press Corps is trying to beat on He Who They Hate the Most with a continuous barrage of anti F-35 propaganda.  The usual talking heads on the daily political TV and radio shows routinely mock the government and the F-35 with ridiculous claims and distortions.


The NDP is going all anti F-35 because it suits their policies of gutting the CF.  They are linking the F-35 budget to the OAS story to scare seniors and leverage their fear mongering anti military party line.


While far from being a model acquisition program, the F-35 represents the future and satisfies the requirements of the RCAF and the moral obligations of Canadians to properly equip our Armed Forces with A+ level equipment

Stay the course,  If we can wait 25 years for a naval helicopter replacement, we can wait an extra year or 2/3 for the F-35 to complete its test program.





Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: HeavyHooker on February 11, 2012, 14:06:06
Haletown:

That seems like a lot of opinion in your post.  I am far from a supporter of the Ottawa Press Corps or definitely the NDP but you just didn't seem to add anything constructive to the conversation other than conjecture.  I really appreciate this thread since almost all of the posts are from recognized sources from both sides of this debate but opinions add nothing to the discussion.

HH
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on February 11, 2012, 15:21:10
Haletown:

That seems like a lot of opinion in your post.  I am far from a supporter of the Ottawa Press Corps or definitely the NDP but you just didn't seem to add anything constructive to the conversation other than conjecture.  I really appreciate this thread since almost all of the posts are from recognized sources from both sides of this debate but opinions add nothing to the discussion.

HH

Thank you for your opinion. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on February 11, 2012, 15:50:30
Not related to the F-35 but i am finding the Swiss decision to go with Grippen NG rather interesting. $3.2 billion for a 22 aircraft deal.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 11, 2012, 16:42:27
Haletown:
Quote
The NDP is going all anti F-35 because it suits their policies of gutting the CF.  They are linking the F-35 budget to the OAS story to scare seniors and leverage their fear mongering anti military party line.

If you are not "Free" and are living under another countries jackboot/agenda/priorities, then who said you will receive OAS? You may just end up living in a "camp", or not living.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 11, 2012, 18:43:03
Not related to the F-35 but i am finding the Swiss decision to go with Grippen NG rather interesting. $3.2 billion for a 22 aircraft deal.

Agreed, it was certainly a curious selection.

As was the the choice of India in selecting the Rafale over the Eurofighter.  But I guess what they say is true, cash is certainly king and the cheaper, more viable aircraft won out based on that alone.

I find that Japan's selection of the -35 was based on a sound competition, which, IMHO, would have resembled the one which could potentially occurr here in Canada should a competition ever be held.  Of course, the selection of the -35 by Japan only further shows that the Conservatives have selected the right a/c based on the criteria outlined and are saving the country the money which would go towards a competition anyways.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on February 11, 2012, 18:47:04

As was the the choice of India in selecting the Rafale over the Eurofighter. 

Yeah, that one had me scratching my head too.

Quote
I find that Japan's selection of the -35 was based ........

More of a political decision methinks.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on February 11, 2012, 18:59:13
I have a feeling that the Swiss decision to buy Grippen NG has more to do with the small size of their country and the fact that they are using them to replace F-5s.  Maybe I missed something, but I did not get the sense they were looking for much more than a new bomb truck that could also some air to air in this project.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on February 11, 2012, 19:03:50
I have a feeling that the Swiss decision to buy Grippen NG has more to do with the small size of their country and the fact that they are using them to replace F-5s. 

The article i read that news from stated that the decision had been made on cost grounds. The Saab bid was the lowest of the types evaluated.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on February 11, 2012, 19:30:47
That will do it, too.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on February 11, 2012, 19:33:27
That will do it, too.

Its a good deal for Saab. From what i understand, the only holdup to the Flygvapnet buying into Grippen NG was the lack of a foreign launch customer. Swiss companies can probably get in on the development and production.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 12, 2012, 01:11:42
The article i read that news from stated that the decision had been made on cost grounds. The Saab bid was the lowest of the types evaluated.

This peaked my interest to do a bit more research on the acquisition, below is what I found.

The final three in the competition were the Rafale, Eurofighter, and the eventual winner - the Gripen NG.

The Super Hornet offered solid performance, and was a legitimate competitor, with pricing that could match or beat competitors like the Rafale and Eurofighter – but it was flying into strong headwinds. In the end, the questions became moot. Boeing looked at the RFP requirements, and bowed out.

All three bidders provided good offset packages that were essentially equivalent. The industrial participation package was also attractive across the board, the Swiss say.

Then it gets a little interesting...

On Jan. 29/12,  Dassault makes Switzerland a new offer: 18 Rafale fighters for SFR 2.7 billion (EUR 2.24 billion, $2.96 billion), instead of 22 Gripens for SFR 3.1 billion.  On a per-plane basis, that’s 17.5% less than Dassault’s reported final offer of SFR 4 billion for 22 Rafales.

Why is this important?

Because the Swiss opposition parties are, more than likely, going to force a national referendum on the matter, just like they did with the 1993 F/A-18 Hornet sale.  Under Swiss law, it’s possible to force a referendum with 50,000 signatures across at least 8 cantons, gathered within 100 days. The Swiss Green Party and their allies have stated that they intend to try.  The Swiss government has already stated that Parliament has already decided that its fighter purchase would not be validated by a referendum. 

Could constitutional bickering also bog down the acquisition time?

According to the link below, win or lose, the process can be expected to delay a secure contract to 2013 or later where the price is expected to increase from the $3.5 billion, probably more by 2014* for the 22 planes.

There's a lot of interesting factors at play in this situation, will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next couple of years.

*insinuation made by article, however, if accurate, it would show that at least one other country outside of the -35 partner countries are expecting rising prices for aircraft acquisition contracts, but are making the purchase because the platform offers long term savings.

Article Referenced:  http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing-its-f-5s-04624/
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: GAP on February 12, 2012, 16:40:14
Canada convenes international meeting over troubled F-35 fighters
 By Reuters and Postmedia News, Postmedia News February 11, 2012
Article Link (http://www.canada.com/Canada%2Bconvenes%2Binternational%2Bmeeting%2Bover%2Btroubled%2Bfighters/6137945/story.html)
 
WASHINGTON - Washington's plan to further slow production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is prompting Canada to convene a meeting with seven other international partners as the countries rethink their own orders for the stealthy new fighter jet.

Canada has committed to purchasing as many as 65 of the planes, but delays and shrinking orders threaten to drive up costs each country must bear for what is already the most expensive weapon system in history.

The Pentagon is restructuring the program for the third time in recent years; a move that will delay savings that would come from building more planes faster.

In January, Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino said in a statement the Canadian government is still committed to the F-35 program, but that he had ordered Defence Department officials in Ottawa to investigate what implications the Pentagon's decision would have on Canada.

International partners who were banking on the savings as they face their own budget pressures are balking at the shift, according to multiple government and industry sources in the U.S. and overseas.

Lockheed Martin Corp., the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier, and U.S. officials who run the $382-billion US weapons program are anxiously preparing for a meeting in Australia in mid-March where the partners - Canada, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Australia, Turkey and the Netherlands - will outline their revamped procurement plans.
More on link
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on February 12, 2012, 20:11:07
Its a good deal for Saab. From what i understand, the only holdup to the Flygvapnet buying into Grippen NG was the lack of a foreign launch customer. Swiss companies can probably get in on the development and production.


Someone has some 'splaining to do  . . . .


"Leaked to the Swiss weekly Le Matin Dimanche , two confidential Swiss Air Force reports conclude that the Swedish-made Gripen combat aircraft does not meet minimal air policing requirements, contrary to declarations made last November by Defense Minister Ueli Maurer who said the Gripen “satisfied Swiss military requirements.”


"What particularly troubles the Swiss is that the mission the Gripen scored the worst on is the only one that the Swiss air force is certain it will have to undertake: protecting the sovereignty of its airspace. The Swedish aircraft only scored 5.33 out of 10 on this mission, well beneath the minimum 6 required by the air force. Gripen's low score overall on this mission was the result of three counter-performances: slow “quick reaction alert” on which it scored 4.7, insufficient flight performance (5.5) and nowhere near enough endurance (3.8).



http://tinyurl.com/7zo2fec



Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on February 12, 2012, 20:23:35

Someone has some 'splaining to do  . . . .




Maybe.

Given that the other contenders were unaffordable, the Swiss didn't have much choice. A quick glance at the documents also lead me to believe that too much faith is put into the data obtained from trials with C/D Grippen, given that the NG is still mostly in development.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on February 13, 2012, 00:51:33
Agreed, it was certainly a curious selection.

As was the the choice of India in selecting the Rafale over the Eurofighter.  But I guess what they say is true, cash is certainly king and the cheaper, more viable aircraft won out based on that alone.

I find that Japan's selection of the -35 was based on a sound competition, which, IMHO, would have resembled the one which could potentially occurr here in Canada should a competition ever be held.  Of course, the selection of the -35 by Japan only further shows that the Conservatives have made the right decision to continue the Liberals' plan to acquire the F-35 when they (Liberals) selected the right a/c in 2002 based on the criteria outlined and are saving the country the money which would go towards a competition anyways.

There, fixed that for you WoF.  ;)


Regards
G2G
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 13, 2012, 09:28:09
There, fixed that for you WoF.  ;)

Regards
G2G

LMAO....thanks.  :nod:
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 14, 2012, 09:53:03
From the Hansard yesterday...

Quote
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon is slashing its purchase of the F-35s. This follows program cuts and concerns from Great Britain, Turkey, Australia, Italy, Norway and Israel. However, here in the House, the Conservatives are doggedly determined to say that everything is just fine.

    The government is panicking and asking Washington for an emergency meeting, but here in the House it still will not tell Canadians the truth. The truth is the government does not have a plan B. Why can the government not bring that forward right now to protect our men and women who are serving in our military?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, that premise is absolutely incorrect. The Royal Canadian Air Force plays an important role in protecting our sovereignty and developing the kinds of assets that are necessary in today's and tomorrow's predicaments.

    Canada's CF-18s are nearing the end of their usable life. The meeting the member referred to is not an emergency at all. It has been in the works for a long time among all of the members.

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, even Conservatives have to give up their fantasy that their billion dollar boondoggle is still on track. The U.S. is confirming it will delay its F-35 orders and it is going to cut $1.6 billion just as a start. The whole program is now in disarray, meaning higher costs for Canadian taxpayers. The Government of Canada has now called an emergency international meeting on the F-35 fiasco.

    Will the government agree to finally apply common sense and put this matter out to tender for our men and women in the service?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, there is no emergency meeting. However, the rhetoric and the untruths seem to prevail.

    Let me assure the member opposite that we are working diligently with all of our partners to ensure that our men and women in the military are given the tools they need and deserve to do the job we require them to do in our country.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on February 14, 2012, 11:19:22
Nice rant . . .  the desperation of the NDP/Official Opposition to slag the government takes many forms of hyperbole, exaggeration, distortions and smears.

The NDP is learning how to be an Opposition.  About time.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 14, 2012, 11:45:48
Excerts from a Globe and Mail piece today...

Quote
By drastically slowing production of the trouble-plagued F-35 – already years late and more-expensive than expected – Mr. Obama’s newly-unveiled Pentagon budget should save American taxpayers more than $15-billion over the next five years.

But this isn't a reduction in total numbers bought...

Quote
U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta recently endorsed the continued development of the F-35 when he outlined planned cuts to military spending. The United States expects to spend $382-billion over 20 years to buy 2,443 of the fighters.

Quote
Early deliveries were vital because Canada’s worn-out F-18s won’t last much longer without hugely expensive rebuilding to keep the warplanes, modernization and repairs.

True enough.

Quote
Ottawa’s estimate of $16-billion for 65 F-35s has already drawn much derision. An independent Parliamentary estimate pegged each F-35’s cost at $128-million. The latest Pentagon estimate is over $150-million per plane.

F-35A: US$122 million 2011 flyaway cost.  The only variant at or perhaps over $50M is the -B.

Quote
With lifetime program costs ranging as high as $1-trillion and futuristic visions of cheaper, more effective, unmanned combat drones quickly becoming flying realities, the F-35s’ ballooning costs are a juicy target.

Would love to see those effective combat drones that are becoming flying realities...

Whole article found here:  Obama’s spending cuts could mean trouble for Canada’s F-35 plans  (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/obamas-spending-cuts-could-mean-trouble-for-canadas-f-35-plans/article2337524/)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on February 14, 2012, 12:17:06
Interesting choice of hyperbole in the article  . . .  "By drastically slowing production".     Of course, the author fails to provide any facts or actual data to back up this claim.

So here's what's actually happening.

The USAF  decreased its planned buy of F-35As from 24 to 19 aircraft for fiscal 2013.    -5 airframes

The USN  is boosting its buy of F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing versions from three to six in the 2013 request.  +3 airframes.

-5+3 = net  delta of -2.  Don't think many people would consider two less airframes a "drastic cut".

The article is clearly trying to direct readers in a decision choice by leaving out facts that would allow a reader to decide for themselves.

The best of contemporary journalism.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 14, 2012, 18:13:42
Lots of information to process over the last little while, here's the latest.

Quote
U.S. slowdown on F-35 purchases to raise cost - Lockheed Martin

Feb 14 (Reuters) - A U.S. plan to drag out purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet would increase "somewhat" the total cost paid by the United States and international allies, Lockheed Martin said on Tuesday.

"It will raise the overall average cost of the total procurement of all the airplanes bought," said Tom Burbage, head of Lockheed Martin's F-35 programme, a day after the Pentagon said it would slow procurement of the fledgling radar-evading aircraft.

Quote
The Pentagon on Monday confirmed plans to postpone production of 179 F-35s over the next five years to save $15.1 billion, including $1.6 billion by funding 13 fewer aircraft in fiscal year 2013.

Source - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/norway-lockheed-idUSL5E8DE6KJ20120214

So that would mean higher costs for aircraft purchased over the next five years, until 2018.  Canada's
Quote
deliveries would come during the ‘peak production’ years between 2016-2023.

Source - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/obamas-spending-cuts-could-mean-trouble-for-canadas-f-35-plans/article2337524/

So that leaves me to ponder whether we'll wait before buying the planes unless the US announces an increase in their per year buy before our proposed purchase year of 2016 or, even better, we act in unison with other countries who have the desire to buy earlier as we do based on the age of their current fleets and work with Lockheed to reduce whatever the overall average cost will be...

Will a possible change in US leadership mean an increase in military spending, thus a possible increase in fighter acquisition?

Will we follow Australia and acquire Super Hornets as a stop gap until the F-35's are available at what should be a lower price once full scale production starts, thus giving us a multi platform fleet for a few years, or will the decision be made to put off the F-35 purchase for another fleet entirely?

IMHO, missing out at the chance of having a frontline fighter with cutting edge technology beyond what is currently available and more importantly in service beyond 2030 would be crazy.

I can't wait to see what comes of the meetings!

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PuckChaser on February 14, 2012, 18:23:03
Will we follow Australia and acquire Super Hornets as a stop gap until the F-35's are available at what should be a lower price once full scale production starts, thus giving us a multi platform fleet for a few years, or will the decision be made to put off the F-35 purchase for another fleet entirely?

We can't afford "stop-gap" fighters. Whatever we get, it's going to have to last for at least 30 years, if not more and the opposition would have a field day if we decided to make a second purchase of fighters so soon after the "stop-gap". I really like what the F-35 has to bring to the table, but I think Lockheed is shooting themselves in the foot by not delivering on time and on cost so far.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Jammer on February 14, 2012, 18:40:04
Single engine...useless in Canada.

Unproven airframe

Very limited steath characteristics that will be defeated in it's lifetime

Limited weapons load

No internal gun

Even the F-22 has to hang external tanks, thus negating any form of stealth.

The F-18E...lower trg costs

Combat proven airframe

Scalable mission loads

Who cares about stealth

Multi engine for increased reliability and lower attrition rates due to mechanical failure

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 14, 2012, 18:59:29
And now that we have Jammers point of view...lol

This just in from Reuters....

Quote
Italian newspaper said Italy to reduce F-35 order by 40

Italy will cut investment in Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter plane as part of an overall reduction in military spending, Defence Minister Giampaolo Di Paola said on Tuesday.

"The F-35 was revised like all the other weapons programmes," Di Paola said after a Cabinet meeting that approved the military spending plan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/defence-italy-f-idUSL5E8DE7YK20120214

So there's the rub...we're not reducing military spending, we're increasing it while at the same time increasing our capabilities.  And it's because of that increase in capabilities that we're getting the F-35 and not another platform to act as a stop gap.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 14, 2012, 19:14:14
Single engine...useless in Canada.    Different engine concept than previous, equivalent to F-22 Raptor performance and tech which hasn't incurred engine failure in any airframes

Unproven airframe  So was the Hornet when we bought it...

Very limited steath characteristics that will be defeated in it's lifetime  Hardly, and any stealth characteristics are better than zero

Limited weapons load  Nope - it can carry a greater number of munitions on multiple stations, both internal and external based on whatever the mission profile is.

No internal gun  Wrong.  The F-35A includes a GAU-22/A cannon mounted internally with 182 rounds

Even the F-22 has to hang external tanks, thus negating any form of stealth.  For ferry flight only, not in combat.

The F-18E...lower trg costs  Sure, because it's a less complex platform than the F-35.

Combat proven airframe  So are the Eurofighter and Rafale, yet they aren't cheap either, are they?

Scalable mission loads  See above - F-35 can carry greater array of weapons

Who cares about stealth  That'd be the pilots we're sending into combat.

Multi engine for increased reliability and lower attrition rates due to mechanical failure  Multi engine doesn't necessarily mean an increase in engine reliability or a redux in attrition rates due to mech failure.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on February 14, 2012, 19:22:06
Single engine...useless in Canada.

and the reason for this is ?


Unproven airframe

It is a new aircraft

Very limited steath characteristics that will be defeated in it's lifetime

Best stealth of any multirole aircraft by far and second only to the F-22

Limited weapons load

17,000 lb vs 17,500lbs for a Super Hornet. Plus it can carry load in full stealth mode which no other multirole aircraft can do


No internal gun

What is the GAU 22/A doing in the left wing root ?


Even the F-22 has to hang external tanks, thus negating any form of stealth.

The F-18E...lower trg costs

Combat proven airframe

Scalable mission loads

Who cares about stealth

Multi engine for increased reliability and lower attrition rates due to mechanical failure
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PuckChaser on February 14, 2012, 19:25:00

Who cares about stealth  That'd be the pilots we're sending into combat.


Beat me to it. Lets give our pilots the best possible advantage to bring the aircraft and themselves home.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Jammer on February 14, 2012, 19:32:11
WoF...thanks for the classy dig...well done.

Mea Culpa on some of the tech errors...ie internal cannon
However I'm sure you would agree that hanging anything on the wings or belly will compromise steath capabiltiy.

The reason defence spending is increasing is to afford the damn things if they are bought....basic economics.

i will debate the extenal tanks on the F-22....they are carried on regular patrolling duties in Alaska

Eurofighter and Rafale are markedly less expensive then the F-35

I would submit that dual engines are better than one...The F-104, apart from being utilized and a ground attack role for which it was never designed had a huge attrition rate for engine failures. the F-16 is not immune to this factor as well. All you have to do is compare F-15 to F-16 attrition rates.

All in all the F-18E offers a better value and more can be purchased for the same budget.

Stealth...it's been nothing but a problem for the F-22...unless LM has learned from it issues with F-22. This has the potential to be a white elephant.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Jammer on February 14, 2012, 19:35:05
Just so we're clear...i don't buy the damn things...I just register my opinions....like anyone else.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Jammer on February 14, 2012, 19:37:36
the best that can be hoped for is that the same folks in the MHP project keep their fingers off this.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SeaKingTacco on February 14, 2012, 21:04:49
the best that can be hoped for is that the same folks in the MHP project keep their fingers off this.

Nice.  How exactly do you find the time to be aeronautic engineer and a comedian in addition to your day job?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Jammer on February 14, 2012, 21:46:37
Oh it's a stretch...some days i'm better at one than the other...(mostly comady though).
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 14, 2012, 22:49:43
WoF...thanks for the classy dig...well done.

Mea Culpa on some of the tech errors...ie internal cannon
However I'm sure you would agree that hanging anything on the wings or belly will compromise steath capabiltiy.

The reason defence spending is increasing is to afford the damn things if they are bought....basic economics.

i will debate the extenal tanks on the F-22....they are carried on regular patrolling duties in Alaska

Eurofighter and Rafale are markedly less expensive then the F-35

I would submit that dual engines are better than one...The F-104, apart from being utilized and a ground attack role for which it was never designed had a huge attrition rate for engine failures. the F-16 is not immune to this factor as well. All you have to do is compare F-15 to F-16 attrition rates.

All in all the F-18E offers a better value and more can be purchased for the same budget.

Stealth...it's been nothing but a problem for the F-22...unless LM has learned from it issues with F-22. This has the potential to be a white elephant.

Thanks, I’m trying harder as time goes on…lol

Yes, obviously hanging anything on the wings or the belly will compromise stealth – but as I outlined before, it really doesn’t matter.  If the planes are doing NORAD patrol and northern intercepts, they can put tanks under the wing and it won’t reduce the planes effectiveness in that role while it intercepts Bears and Blackjacks.  As well, should they be tasked for a role similar to that in Libya, they will have no tanks on and rely on aerial refuelling to keep them on station. 

I don’t have to debate the use of external tanks on a Raptor.  They are present because the planes are either being ferried to a location and need the extra gas OR are being configured for use after air dominance in a battle area has been secured, and extra loiter time and firepower is required for Combat Air Patrol (CAP).  This same situation is the one which I’ve outlined in the paragraph above concerning the F-35 on NORAD patrol.

With all due respect, defence spending is increasing not because we might need more money for the F-35, but because almost every bit of kit that is currently in use – especially with the RCAF – is either at or nearing the end of its service life.  What do you propose we do, not spend the money and not have the capability?

As for the Eurofighter, I would suggest you do a bit more research.  RAF Tranche 1 aircraft are going to be retired – essentially thrown away – by 2019.  That leaves Tranche 2 and 3 aircraft.  On 17 June 2009, Germany ordered 31 aircraft of Tranche 3A for €2,800m, leading to a system cost of €90m per aircraft.  The UK plans to retire the entire Eurofighter fleet by 2030.  So if you want to pay more for aircraft that will have a much shorter service life, and aren’t as capable as the F-35 in the strike role by the way, then your entire argument is moot.

You’re right, the Rafale is cheaper.  It also exclusively uses French designed armament which isn’t as technologically advanced or as numerous as what will be carried by the F-35.  Canada also has zero dollars invested in its development, and the likelihood that France will move parts of production here are slim.  Not to mention the fact that it doesn’t have stealth capabilities.

Instead of comparing Eagles to Vipers, why not compare the Viper to the Raptor, and then make a decision based on the fact that the engine in use with the F-35 provides the same performance standards as the Raptor and is designed essentially the same way.  There have been no recorded issues with Raptor engines – so why should we go all doomsday over an engine that performs the same way?

You still haven’t shown me how the Super Hornet offers better value for the money, especially when they’re going to start retiring them in 2030.  Also, as SAM technology progresses, how safe do you think that our pilots will be in a non LO platform?

You state that stealth has been nothing but a problem for the Raptor.  That’s why the newly created and better stealth coatings of the F-35 are going to be used on the F-22. 

With the new platform comes new advancements – ones which put the F-35 miles ahead of its competition.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PuckChaser on February 15, 2012, 00:41:01
Eurofighter and Rafale are markedly less expensive then the F-35

And there are countries picking the F-35 instead of the Eurofighter, and even think with the cost increases that the F-35 is cheaper. Sources would probably help your argument here.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Jammer on February 15, 2012, 11:43:41
Like I said before lads, it's only my opinion. based on the trade mags, tech data, financial reporting..etc.
Agreed that with out a doubt If/when the F-35 is placed in service with whatever nation flys it it will be a great plane asset. Albeit not in great numbers.

No, I'm not a military pilot, aeronautical engr. Nor do I play one on TV.

i really don't take a whole lot of stock in what the RAF might or will do. As you can imagine the UK MoD is undergoing a little upheaval right now, enough that they could be using assault boats to patrol the Channel soon.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 15, 2012, 12:17:49
From today's Globe and Mail, compliments of Murray Brewster of the Canadian Press

Quote
Half of stealth-jet fleet won't arrive till after CF-18s reach end of service life

MURRAY BREWSTER
OTTAWA— The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 6:38PM EST
Last updated Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011 9:59AM EST

The air force will have less than half its fleet of new F-35 fighter jets in place when it comes time to retire the aging CF-18s, and will only receive one stealth jet in the first year of the program, government estimates reveal.

The delivery of all 65 jets is being spread out between 2016 and 2023, with most of the radar-evading aircraft arriving after 2019, according to figures provided by the office of Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino.

Here are some of the more interesting points, I'm not going to bother with the fact that the headline should have included the word "some" before CF-18's.

Quote
According to access-to-information records, Canada is expected to buy 13 F-35s between 2016 and 2019. A further 52 will follow between 2020 and 2023.

Quote
“Canada's delivery of F-35 aircraft will be phased in incrementally as our aging CF-18s/fleet needs to be replaced,” Chris McCluskey said in an email response to questions from The Canadian Press.

Quote
Defence experts, such as retired air force lieutenant-colonel Dean Black, said he believes Canada's decision on a slow purchase plan is more related to budget uncertainty further down the road – something the Parliamentary budget officer has warned about.

With the decision to accept fewer aircraft over a longer period of time and no room to postpone further, Black says the government has tough decisions to make.

Although the modernized CF-18s won't fall out of the sky in 2020, the airframes and avionics of some will be worn with age.

The government should consider either another upgrade – or the purchase of a handful of the latest version of the fighter, known as the Super Hornet, said Mr. Black, the executive director of the Air Force Association of Canada.

That is exactly what Australia has done in the face of ongoing F-35 delays. The United States has also embarked on a life-extending programs for hundreds of its F-16 Tomcats* Falcons.  *my edit

“If it came down to extending the life of our CF-18s, there are things the government and our military experts could look at,” Mr. Black said. “I'm not sure whether Australia considers its Super Hornet purchase as a gap filler, but it wouldn't be beyond Canada to do that kind of thing.”

The entire article can be read here. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/half-of-stealth-jet-fleet-wont-arrive-till-after-cf-18s-reach-end-of-service-life/article2237373/)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: ArmyRick on February 15, 2012, 13:00:36
Enough! Screw all of this technology this and capability that blah blah blah...

The F35 is the coolest looking aircraft we can get and thats what ultimately matters!!!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Colin P on February 15, 2012, 13:22:09
Excuse me while I  :deadhorse:

Purchase 30 SuperHornets now and agree to take 35 f-35s initially and possibly more on a slow rate production. We have a replacement for the CF-18 and are not screwed when one fleet gets grounded over some unforeseen fault.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on February 15, 2012, 15:10:13
Like I said before lads, it's only my opinion. based on the trade mags, tech data, financial reporting..etc.

If those charged with fighter selection based their opinions solely on the same sources, their opinions might match yours. Their information is a lot more detailed, extensive, accurate, and current as well as classified, hence their opinions are somewhat different.

I'll put more stock in their opinions.

Albeit not in great numbers.

Please define "great numbers". Over two thousand isn't great enough for you?

As far as the engine issue is concerned, there's been a little progress in engine design and reliability since the F104 was state-of-the-art. The US Navy is willing to operate these over oceans. They do not seem to be any more concerned than our people. It's only an issue for media and anti-Harper types who will never fly in these or come close to grasping the facts.

The vast bulk of my flying time is on single-engined aircraft. A fair amount of that was over less-than-hospitable isolated territory and occasionally significant stretches of water. It didn't bother me. I never had so much as a hiccup from an engine over about 3800 hours.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Remius on February 15, 2012, 15:36:03
The concern shouldn't be about the plane's performance.  Experts have figured out that this plane is the best choice for the job.  Can other planes do the same job?  Probably but they figure this is the best option.

The problem for me is the deal itself and the cost.  Seems like it is going from questionable to cluster**** in record time.  As allied partners scale back, delay and reduce, the price seems to get steeper and steeper.

Would we be getting the best plane?  I have no doubt.  Would we be getting the best deal?  I'm not so sure.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on February 15, 2012, 16:25:40

Would we be getting the best plane?  I have no doubt.  Would we be getting the best deal?  I'm not so sure.

The government has done a very poor job of explaining/selling  this acquisition. The first and biggest mistake was deciding to quote the price  to include total life cycle costs per aircraft rather than the usual method of using the airframe price.  That opened the door to a Niagara of fear mongering media coverage and a never gets dull  pointy stick for the  anti Cf crowd out there in Peace & Love NGO land.

Very poorly handled by the tall forehead types in the PMO & Brick Brain sur Rideau.

The result is the F-35, which should be a flag ship acquisition has ended up being the gift that keeps on giving to the PPG/MSM, the Opposition and the whole gamut of military haters across the land.






Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MCG on February 15, 2012, 21:07:40
I would submit that dual engines are better than one ...
Two engines that are 99.9% reliable are exactly the same as one engine that is 99.9999% reliable.  Back in the bad old days of the Canuck and Starfighter, engine reliability was much higher than either of those numbers, and today reliability is much higher than it was back then.  As reliability of one system gets better, there are diminishing returns for putting two systems in parallel.  Does it make sense to pay double the cost for two engines when the second engine only brings marginal improvement in reliability?  At the same time, that second engine increases the size of the aircraft and increases the logistic support requirements of the aircraft.

No, I'm not a ... aeronautical engr.
It shows.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on February 17, 2012, 12:02:54
Friday morning F-35 porn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MemOSGx18sw&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBt-aQ1vObM&feature=related
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Colin P on February 17, 2012, 13:02:40
The concern shouldn't be about the plane's performance.  Experts have figured out that this plane is the best choice for the job.  Can other planes do the same job?  Probably but they figure this is the best option.

The problem for me is the deal itself and the cost.  Seems like it is going from questionable to cluster**** in record time.  As allied partners scale back, delay and reduce, the price seems to get steeper and steeper.

Would we be getting the best plane?  I have no doubt.  Would we be getting the best deal?  I'm not so sure.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with this.

I suspect the F-35 will perform well over it’s life and the VTOL version will give options to smaller navies far beyond what the Harrier could. In fact I think this is where the type will really shine. (HMCS Bonaventure II anyone?)  ;D
However I think the 65 airframe is already to few and any reduction in this number is going to be a real problem for us in the future. I know people here are going to say “experts figured out this number as amount we needed” Personally I think the real reason for this number is that it is the “bare bone minimum we can get by with and as much as the government is going to tolerate from a cost perspective”.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 20, 2012, 19:33:37
More information and photos found at the link below.

Quote
F-35 Flies With External Stores

The F-35 has completed its first external weapons flight test, an F-35A CTOL test aircraft flying with AIM-9X air-to-air missiles on the outboard wing stations and unoccupied pylons inboard.

Complete article, once again with photos, can be found here. (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a82516784-4f4f-40d6-8a23-c5ccd65ffa91&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on February 22, 2012, 12:51:30
Latest (as of 16 Feb 12) from the Congressional Research Service attached - from the summary:
Quote
The largest procurement program in the Department of Defense (DOD), the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also called the Lightning II, is a new aircraft being procured in different versions for the United States Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. Current DOD plans call for acquiring a total of 2,456 JSFs. Hundreds of additional F-35s are expected to be purchased by several U.S. allies, eight of which are cost-sharing partners in the program.

The F-35 promises significant advances in military capability. Like many high-technology programs before it, reaching that capability has put the program above its original budget and behind the planned schedule.

The Administration’s proposed FY2013 defense budget requested about $5.8 billion in procurement funding for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. This would fund the procurement of 19 F-35As for the Air Force, 6 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps, and 4 F-35Cs for the Navy.

FY2012 defense authorization act: The report on the House-passed version of the FY2011 defense authorization bill included language limiting expenditure of funds for performance improvements to the F-35 propulsion system unless development and production of such propulsion system is done competitively. Other language required the Secretary of Defense to preserve and store government-owned property acquired under the F136 propulsion system development contract and allows the contractor to conduct research, development, test, and evaluation of the F136 engine at the contractor’s expense. The Senate Armed Services Committee report required that the fifth F-35 low-rate initial production contract lot be a fixed price contract, and that the contractor assume full responsibility for costs under the contract above the target cost specified in the contract. The Senate report also required DOD to implement the requirements of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 in the F-35 program. These provisions, less the language regarding allowing the F136 contractor to continue development, and with a required report on the status of F-35B development, were included in the final conference report.

FY2012 DOD appropriations bill: The House Appropriations Committee funded 19 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs, and 7 F-35Cs, as requested, while cutting $55 million from F-35C and $75 million from F-35 research and development. The Senate Appropriations Committee funded 17 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs, and 6 F-35Cs. With cuts to R&D and advance procurement, the SAC mark funded $695 million less than the Administration request.

The conference report on FY2012 defense appropriations funded F-35 procurement at $5.9 billion for 31 aircraft (19 F-35As, 6 F-35Bs, and 7 F-35Cs), plus $455 million in advance procurement.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on February 22, 2012, 15:13:41
Some Wednesday F-35 porn.

http://www.gizmag.com/f35a-armament-test-flight/21557/pictures#5

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 24, 2012, 12:46:47
Quote
Lockheed readies aggressive F-35 test schedule

By MARCUS WEISGERBER
Posted : Thursday Feb 23, 2012 18:18:04 EST
   
ORLANDO, Fla. — Lockheed Martin is preparing to ramp up flight testing of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter over the next year, including the first release of live weapons.

The multinational, tri-service program has put together a robust flight test schedule for 2012, according to Alan Norman, Lockheed’s F-35 chief test pilot. The program is expected to conduct more than 10,000 test points per year in 2013, 2014 and 2015, Norman said at a Feb. 23 briefing at an Air Force Association-sponsored conference here.

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2012/02/dn022312_AFA_F-35/
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 24, 2012, 12:48:45
Quote
AFA: Eglin’s trainer F-35s could fly in coming weeks

By John Reed Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 4:58 pm
Posted in Air, International, Policy

ORLANDO — After sitting on the ground at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida for months, the Pentagon’s fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter training jets could beging flying in a matter of weeks, the Air Force’s top training officer said Thursday.

“We’re not certainly talking months away at this point, it’s a matter of weeks in my mind and we’ll see how all that comes together,” said Gen. Edward Rice, commander of Air Education and Training Command, during a press conference at the Air Force Association’s winter conference here.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/23/afa-winter-eglin-f-35s-could-fly-in-weeks/#ixzz1nJpBoLbg
DoDBuzz.com
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on February 24, 2012, 12:49:57
Quote
Turkey plans on buying 100 F-35
ISTANBUL- Hürriyet Daily News
 
Turkey will proceed with its plan to acquire dozens of F-35 fighter jets worth $16 billion, says the Turkish Defense Minister. Many partner countries of the international F-35 consortium have reneged on their purchasing plans

Turkey is planning to purchase 100 multi-purpose F-35 jet fighters worth $16 billion, Turkish Defense Minister İsmet Yılmaz has said, according to daily Milliyet.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-plans-on-buying-100-f-35.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14496&NewsCatID=345
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: lethalLemon on February 24, 2012, 12:57:40
I think you have hit the nail on the head with this.

blah.. blah... (HMCS Bonaventure II anyone?)  ;D

...and more blah... blah.

Yes please  :D
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on February 24, 2012, 13:06:25
Next up  . . . Korea.





http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/awst/2012/02/20/AW_02_20_2012_p32-426408.xml&headline=South%20Korea%20Becomes%20Next%20Fighter%20Battleground&channel=defense
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: GAP on February 24, 2012, 13:09:50
Quote
Quote from: Colin P on February 17, 2012, 10:02:40

    I think you have hit the nail on the head with this.

    blah.. blah... (HMCS Bonaventure II anyone?)  ;D

    ...and more blah... blah.

Don't the English have spare ones?

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on February 24, 2012, 22:01:10
news that CBC and all their buddies in the desperation media  will be sure to tell Canadians.

F-35 Surpasses 2011 Testing Goals (So Where Are All The News Stories?) Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D. Nov 21, 2011

http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/f-35-surpasses-2011-testing-goals-so-where-are-all-the-news-stories?a=1&c=1171


"Aviation Week & Space Technology reports today that the nation's biggest weapons development program has surpassed its testing goals for calendar year 2011, and is on track to do the same in 2012. The goal for 2011 was 872 flight tests, and as of last Thursday [17 Nov 2011], 875 had been completed.....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on February 25, 2012, 14:58:03
Very good summary . . .  sure to be reported by the usual cadre of MSM'ers.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120224/DEFREG02/302240004/JSF-Chief-Engineer-F-35-Military-Flight-Release-Happen-Soon

Seems they have found their Systems Engineering gene and gone back to some unglamorous basics.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 01, 2012, 08:20:38
Associate Minister Fantino's latest in Question Period here (http://tinyurl.com/hansard-29feb12-fantino-f35) and here (http://tinyurl.com/hansard-29feb12-fantino-f35-2) - a bit of a message add-on (highlights mine) to previous messaging in the House:
Quote
The Royal Canadian Air Force plays an important role in protecting our sovereignty and defending our interests at home and abroad. Canada's CF-18s are nearing the end of their usable lives. A contract has not been signed as yet for the replacement aircraft. We have set a budget for replacement. We have been clear that we will operate within that budget. We will make sure that the air force has the aircraft necessary to do the job we ask of it .... all I can say repeatedly is that we are engaged with all of our partners on this particular issue. No contracts have been signed. We will do the best we can for our men and women in the military, as well as Canadian taxpayers.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 02, 2012, 08:04:01
The latest answers on the F-35 from the Minister of Defence (http://tinyurl.com/hansard-1mar12-mackay-f35) focus on who's asking the question:
Quote
Mr. Speaker, that is more of the daily diatribe against the interests of the Canadian Forces and their families and against the interests of the aerospace industry. I do not know why the New Democratic Party continually demonstrates that it is so out of touch with our country's defence needs. That member, among all members present, should know that this is the only fifth generation aircraft available to the Royal Canadian Air Force. This is the plane that Canada needs now and into the future .... Canada and the associate minister are showing leadership on this issue. We are meeting with the partners and with the industry. What we do know, and the Minister of Justice has reminded me, is that the New Democratic Party is against efforts to send a strong signal to those who would violate the justice system. That party is against the development of the energy sector, the aerospace sector and definitely against the interests of the Royal Canadian Air Force. It is against development. That party is the no defence, no deterrents, no development party. That is what we see time and time again in the House.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 02, 2012, 13:53:09
Quote
NDP MPs Matthew Kellway and Christine Moore are holding a news conference Friday on Canada's F-35 purchase as Associate Minister of Defence Julian Fantino attends meetings in Washington.

The NDP has been critical of Canada's plans to buy up to 65 F-35 fighter jets to replace the country's aging CF-18 planes ....
CBC.ca, 2 Mar 12 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/02/pol-f35s-fantino-washington.html)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 02, 2012, 15:49:13
CBC.ca, 2 Mar 12 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/02/pol-f35s-fantino-washington.html)

Let's see...now I'm only guessing here...

"Blah blah blah too expensive...blah blah blah first strike....blah blah one engine....blah blah blah other countries cancelling orders....."

On a more serious note, I'm wondering what will come out of these meetings and whether the government will stay on its current acquisition path or whether they'll be considering other options, which, IMHO, are limited to the Super Hornet and/or Silent Eagle, both made by Boeing.  Or perhaps a combination of airframes...
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Colin P on March 02, 2012, 16:37:17
If the NDP seriously supported outright that we should be buying the superHornet and that they would as a party approve of buying 65+ airframes, then I would listen to them. But I know that if the government cancelled the F-35 right now and switched to SH's , the NDP will find another stick about the purchase to beat the CPC with. Because for the NDP  buying fighter aircraft is not a cncern, just beating the government is the important end result.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 02, 2012, 17:28:30
Let's see...now I'm only guessing here...

"Blah blah blah too expensive...blah blah blah first strike....blah blah one engine....blah blah blah other countries cancelling orders....."
If the NDP seriously supported outright that we should be buying the superHornet and that they would as a party approve of buying 65+ airframes, then I would listen to them.
Only a bit of the above (in yellow) on this one - "open and transparent process" is the main messaging card being played:
Quote
As Conservative Associate Minister of Defence Julian Fantino meets with F-35 purchasing partners in Washington, the NDP is pressing the Conservatives to adopt a plan B. New Democrats are demanding an open and transparent tender process so the air force can obtain aircraft that meet Canada’s needs.
 
“Our partners are concerned about delays in deliveries, skyrocketing costs and the poor performance of these planes. This is why they have a plan B,” said Christine Moore, Critic for Military Procurement. “The Conservatives must follow suit with our allies instead of hiding the details from Canadians on this issue.”
 
“The Conservatives must be transparent and answer Canadians about what exactly the Conservatives are talking about in Washington,” said Matthew Kellway, Deputy Critic for Military Procurement. “The Conservatives shouldn’t be giving a blank cheque to Lockheed Martin before they know the real costs of the F-35s.”
 
For months, New Democrats have been demanding the Conservatives launch an open and transparent tender process to replace the aging CF-18 fleet. Restarting the procurement process is the only way to ensure Canada will acquire the best aircraft for our needs at the best price.
NDP Info-machine, 2 Mar 12 (http://www.ndp.ca/press/f-35s-conservatives-must-present-plan-b)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 02, 2012, 21:51:53
1)  The Info-machine's summary (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4104) of today's meeting:
Quote
The Honourable Julian Fantino, Canada’s Associate Minister of National Defence, received his latest update regarding the continued progress of the multinational Joint Strike Fighter Program during a successful meeting with program partners.

“The Royal Canadian Air Force plays an important role in protecting our sovereignty, and defending our interests at home and abroad,” said Minister Fantino. “Canada’s CF-18s are nearing the end of their usable lives, and we will ensure Canada’s Air Force is properly equipped for the job we ask of them.”

Canada’s involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter Program began in 1997. The Government of Canada regularly receives updates and participates in routine discussions with our allies regarding the developmental Joint Strike Fighter Program that has already resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts for a Canadian industry that employs 80,000 Canadians. Canadian workers are helping to build the F-35 for Canada and our allies.

"The perspective gained from discussions with our allies and industry partners, including the Joint Program Office and Lockheed Martin, has been valuable," said Minister Fantino. “While good progress continues to be made, we will always be vigilant with our stewardship of taxpayers’ hard earned dollars. Canada has set a budget for replacement aircraft and we have been clear that we will operate within that budget."

The multinational Joint Strike Fighter Program represents a new model for international cooperation. Regular discussions between Minister Fantino and his counterparts led to agreement that multilateral updates add purpose over bilateral discussions and updates.

“We are demonstrating leadership to improve how Canada and our allies approach multinational development initiatives,” said Minister Fantino. “

We agree that similar meetings will help improve mutual understanding and collaboration to protect international stability from threats to security and human rights.”

2)  MSM quotes U.S. General (http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/1-global-partners-committed-f-192936883.html) saying other military leaders (including Canada's) are on board for the buy:
Quote
Declining orders for Lockheed Martin Corp (Dusseldorf: 351011.DU - news) 's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from Washington's international partners reflect economic pressures in those countries, not a lack of commitment to the multinational program, the top U.S. Air Force general said on Tuesday.

Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz said military leaders in Canada, Australia, Turkey, Italy and other countries helping to develop the new fighter plane have told him they remain committed to buying the stealthy new fighter "as soon as their economic circumstances permit."

"It should not be read as a diminished commitment to pursuing this capability over the longer term," Schwartz told a hearing by the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on the fiscal 2013 budget request from the Air Force.

Canada is hosting a meeting of the international partners at its embassy in Washington on Friday to get an update about the program and what effect Washington's plans to postpone orders for 179 F-35 jets for five years will have on the jet's price.

Washington insists it still plans to buy 2,443 of the new planes at a cost of $382 billion over the next two decades ....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Loachman on March 05, 2012, 12:08:32
Some of the comments are amusing as well:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2012/03/top-gun-2-will-rock-the-f-35-t.html

Top Gun 2 will rock the F-35, Tom Burbage says

By Stephen Trimble on March 1, 2012 7:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (49) | TrackBacks (0) |ShareThis
Maverick is becoming an F-35 test pilot.

It's true.

Tom Burbage, the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme manager, showed up at a National Aeronautics Association luncheon today and dropped a bombshell of a Hollywood scoop. Sure, there was talk about schedules and budgets, partners and politics, software blocks and carrier hooks. But we'll get to that later.

The big news from Burbage's speech involves Top Gun 2, the long-not-quite-awaited-but-certainly-delayed sequel of the 1986 fighter jock classic.

Tom Cruise, of course, confirmed back in December that the sequel is coming, but nobody - not even IMDB (we checked) - knows the full story. 

But Burbage does. Lockheed's Fort Worth, Texas, factory and flight test center will host production crew in the "next month or so" to start filming, Burbage told the NAA luncheon crowd.

Burbage also confirmed that Cruise will not just make a cameo; he will be the star, and he is playing the role of a Lockheed F-35 test pilot!

Potential plot twists fill our heads.

There will be no need to resurrect Goose, as the F-35 is a single-seater. With the Libyan air force in smouldering ruins, there will also be no need to stage another improbable yet inspiring combat scenario. Indeed, as a test pilot, it's not clear how the movie's writers can weave Maverick into a combat situation.

Maybe we've been covering the industry too long, but our perfect plot for Top Gun 2 has no combat sequences at all. Instead, it goes like this:

Maverick is a test pilot struggling to keep the flight test programme on schedule, even though his better judgment is sometimes compromised by a lifelong, paralyzing fear of vertical landings. Maverick almost throws in the towel after his favourite knee board/test card holder is destroyed in an unfortunate lift fan malfunction. Meanwhile, the programme's enemies, led by the snearing Bill "Iceman" Sweetman and Karlo "Slider" Kopp, take advantage of Maverick's absence to nearly bury the programme in a wave of seemingly overwhelming blog attacks. That's when Maverick's love interest - a Texas congresswoman strategically placed on the AirLand subcommittee -  intervenes. She gives Maverick her father's last knee board (er, her father was also a test pilot ... just go with it) and literally pushes him back into the cockpit. Maverick straps on the knee board, takes the Block 3 software build out for a spin, hits every test point and - for the finale - lands vertically right on top of Aviation Week's building in downtown Washington DC. And that's when Kenny Loggins starts singing.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Kilo_302 on March 06, 2012, 12:52:34
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/jsf-test/#more-74639 (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/jsf-test/#more-74639)

What do you guys make of this article? Danger Room is often criticle of the military and defense procurement, but this seems to be jiving with other reports about the JSF that aren't just goverment or defense ministry fluff pieces.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 06, 2012, 13:27:38
Not much.  Larded up with excessive use of pejorative adjectives and the usual drive by innuendos & smears.

The JSF Programis a complex system of aircraft types and systems that is still in the early/mid Test & Evaluation program stages. 

Issues are supposed to come up.  That's what testing is for. 



Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on March 06, 2012, 14:03:20
It is interesting to compare this programme to both the Bradley and Abrams programmes.

In all three cases there was a run-off to determine which supplier had a combination of the best concept and the best supply train.  In all three cases one supplier was picked to bring the project to the field.  In all three cases the whinging and moaning from the "I coulda done it better if only they had listened to me" fringe made life miserable for the project managers.

Anybody complaining about the Bradley and the Abrams now?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: trampbike on March 06, 2012, 14:44:03
Anybody complaining about the Bradley and the Abrams now?

We can all thank John Boyd and his acolytes for that. Without them, I'm not sure the Bradley would have been a good purchase.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 06, 2012, 15:32:14
Some news...

Quote
F-35A AF-15 First Flight

Lockheed Martin test pilot Al Norman flew the tenth production model of the F-35 Lightning II, F-35A AF-14 (Air Force serial number 09-5002), on its inaugural flight on 3 March 2012 from NAS Fort Worth JRB. The aircraft is the second produced under the third Low Rate Initial Production contract.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/news_item.html?item_id=616

Quote
Norway upbeat on F-35; Florida test flight set

March 5 (Reuters) - Norway's No. 2 defense official said he was more upbeat about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program than in a long time after visiting a test site in California last week and meeting with the eight other partners on the program.

Defense State Secretary Roger Ingebrigsten said on Monday that Norway was finalizing its plans to buy "approximately 50 fighters," but did not expect any significant cost increases to its order.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/06/lockheed-fighter-idUSL2E8E5CLX20120306?rpc=401
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on March 06, 2012, 16:04:45
British eye candy, enjoy !  :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIEQgBKXkME
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 06, 2012, 16:34:05
So does this  . . .

"IAF looking for second stealth fighter squadron"

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=258666


 . . . mean that we will get breathless stories from the usual sources that this increase in the total number of F-35s produced will lower the price?

Because they would be all over a story if a nation cancelled or reduced an order and lowered the production run.

All over that story like stink on doggy-doo. 

Right?  Because the Japanese buy was so well covered, so well explained.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on March 06, 2012, 18:03:29
We can all thank John Boyd and his acolytes for that. Without them, I'm not sure the Bradley would have been a good purchase.

Like polishing boots.....small circles.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 06, 2012, 19:28:40
Just saw this a few minutes ago.......No big deal i would think.

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/letter-from-ig-for-coming-f-35-program.html

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 06, 2012, 19:41:05
Just saw this a few minutes ago.......No big deal i would think.

http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/letter-from-ig-for-coming-f-35-program.html

Saw that too.  Agreed routine stuff  . . .   keep in mind ELP is one Eric Palmer an ex USAF type who is a hardcore F-35 hater.  He's in Australia now and posts his F-35 opinions from there.

He's the guy who wrote the now infamous line

 "The U.S. Navy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) known as the F-35C is at serious risk of never being able to land aboard an aircraft carrier"

that got so much airplay before it could be deflated as typical hysteria. 

But he has a right to write whatever stuff he wants to.  He gets routinely fisked from people who actually fly and fight or  flew or fought fighter aircraft.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: tomahawk6 on March 07, 2012, 22:29:06
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg6.imageshack.us%2Fimg6%2F5695%2F536873.jpg&hash=9a6b0e4edd1e0b68453877795757dc19)

Lt. Col. Eric Smith, the 58th Fighter Squadron director of operations, undergoes a computerized helmet test prior to stepping to the F-35A Lightning II joint strike fighter for its first-ever training sortie March 6 at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. Smith is the first Air Force pilot qualified to fly the F-35. The helmet is tested with a computer before each sortie.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg832.imageshack.us%2Fimg832%2F1553%2F536877.jpg&hash=4521f1ed2ed6f60b544f96043fc1631e)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: cupper on March 07, 2012, 23:04:55
Too F'n Cool!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 08, 2012, 10:15:55
Nice article that points out both why Canada should buy the F-35 and why the Government hasn't done the greatest of jobs in selling the plane to the public.

Quote
The 5G Argument
by Tim Dunne
 
© FrontLine Defence Vol.9 No.1

The Canadian Government’s July 2010 announcement that it was to replace the aging CF-18 Hornet with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning joint strike fighter (JSF) aircraft was met with stern admonishment (and some ridicule) from Rideau Institute president Steven Staples, among others who oppose military purchases.

More at the link -> The 5G Argument (http://frontline-canada.com/Defence/index_archives.php?page=1799)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: ArmyRick on March 08, 2012, 11:36:36
I think i said it before.

#1 Reason Canada should buy it, IT LOOKS FREAKING COOL!!!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 08, 2012, 13:38:24
I think i said it before.

#1 Reason Canada should buy it, IT LOOKS FREAKING COOL!!!


With respect, it looks menacing; these (5:00 t0 7:45) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6PnKUEFX8g) are "cool."  ;)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 09, 2012, 13:12:39
Friday morning F-35A porn . . .

http://www.lofotposten.no/lokale_nyheter/article5962426.ece?start=1

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: GAP on March 11, 2012, 23:24:22
Security experts say China hacked secret F-35 fighter jet plans from BAE Systems
Sunday, March 11, 2012
http://www.terminalx.org/2012/03/security-experts-say-china-hacked.html (http://www.terminalx.org/2012/03/security-experts-say-china-hacked.html)

The Sunday Times

Chinese spies hacked into computers belonging to BAE Systems, Britain's biggest defence company, to steal details about the design, performance and electronic systems of the West's latest fighter jet, senior security figures have disclosed.

The Chinese exploited vulnerabilities in BAE's computer defences to steal vast amounts of data on the $300 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a multinational project to create a plane that will give the West air supremacy for years to come, according to the sources.

The hacking attack has prompted fears that the fighter jet's advanced radar capabilities could have been compromised.

Details of the attack on BAE have been a closely guarded secret within Britain's intelligence community since it was first uncovered nearly three years ago. But they were disclosed by a senior BAE executive during a private dinner in London for cyber security experts late last year.

One of those present said: "The BAE man said that for 18 months, Chinese cyber attacks had taken place against BAE and had managed to get hold of plans of one of its latest fighters."
more on link
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: tomahawk6 on March 12, 2012, 13:47:25
Hey no worries,PRC agents set up a fake facebook  account for Admiral Stavrides which became a great source of intel. ::)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/9136029/How-spies-used-Facebook-to-steal-Nato-chiefs-details.html
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on March 12, 2012, 22:40:35
And speaking of small circles.......Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9139029/Cost-of-refitting-Royal-Navy-aircraft-carrier-trebles.html)

Apparently "cats and traps" even especially when they employ some sort of novel high tech kit like emals.

Quote
Cost of refitting Royal Navy aircraft carrier trebles

 The costs of refitting a Royal Navy aircraft carrier so it can be used by a new generation of fighter jets have more than trebled, defence sources have told The Daily Telegraph.



Estimates for adapting HMS Prince of Wales so that it can be used by the Joint Strike Fighter are understood have risen from £500 million to £1.8 billion.
 

Millions have already been spent on studies to look at how to convert the ship after ministers decided to scrap the jump-jet variant of the plane in favour of a conventional take-off and landing model. But so great is the rise in total costs, ministers are considering abandoning the plan and reverting to the Ministry of Defence’s original proposals......


 

Back to Plan A (or should that be Plan B as in F35B).....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 13, 2012, 10:28:05
Latest from Question Period yesterday (http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1#Int-6928010):
Quote
Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, a curious thing happened in Washington 10 days ago. The minister came out of his emergency meeting with the same talking points and a renewed commitment to the F-35. The Americans came out of the very same meeting with confirmation that the price of the F-35 was going up, again.

Did the Americans share this news with the minister, or keep him in the dark? If he was advised of the price jump, why is he not telling Canadians? What is the price of the F-35?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Air Force plays an important role in protecting our sovereignty and defending our interests at home and abroad. Canada's CF-18s are nearing the end of their usable lives. A contract has not been signed for replacement aircraft, and we have set a budget for replacement aircraft and have been clear that we will operate within that budget. We will make sure that our air force has aircraft necessary to do the job we ask of it, regardless of what the member opposite thinks.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: FSTO on March 13, 2012, 16:20:13
Are we getting cold feet?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/13/pol-fantino-steps-back-f35s.html

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: HeavyHooker on March 13, 2012, 17:38:14
Fantino's comments look like the beginning of the end.  Anyone else getting deja-vu from the EH-101?

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120313/fantino-fighter-jets-120313/
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Brihard on March 13, 2012, 17:49:49
<shrug> I'm gonna stick with my long held opinion- we should have tendered it. In an ideal world we'd have the money to buy this much plane, but we don't. We don't need the new off the lot Cadillac when there are 4.5 or 4.75 gen fighters out there that will satisfy Canada's requirements as well or nearly as well without emphasizing capabilities we don't realistically need, and without reducing the number of airframes we get due to exorbitant price. I'd love to see us have some, don't get me wrong, but the opportunity cost seems too high.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 13, 2012, 18:13:53
or . . .   this + the Canada sponsored meeting of foreign buyers looks more like the pre negotiating prepare the ground moves.

The intended audience is LochMart.  Sending them some messages, putting them on notice.

Negotiations can be so much fun. 

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Colin P on March 13, 2012, 18:36:23
So if Canada opens up a competition that sets a ceiling on price and number of airframes required, will the opposition back off? Or will they just look at the new stick and starting beating on the government for changing it's mind
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 13, 2012, 18:37:48
The opposition will do exactly that : Oppose.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 13, 2012, 18:47:04
The opposition will do exactly that : Oppose.

And it is called Question Period, not Answer Period.

Funny the Opposition and the Staples types never mention the vastly increased capabilities the F-35 brings to the RCAF beyond the limited Air-to-Air, Air-to-Ground that the CF-18 or any of the other potential  "4+" aircraft offers.

The F-35's  ISR & EW capabilities will provide the RCAF with a whole new non kinetic operational  capability.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PPCLI Guy on March 13, 2012, 23:19:15
<shrug> I'm gonna stick with my long held opinion- we should have tendered it. In an ideal world we'd have the money to buy this much plane, but we don't. We don't need the new off the lot Cadillac when there are 4.5 or 4.75 gen fighters out there that will satisfy Canada's requirements as well or nearly as well without emphasizing capabilities we don't realistically need, and without reducing the number of airframes we get due to exorbitant price. I'd love to see us have some, don't get me wrong, but the opportunity cost seems too high.

Heartily agree
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 13, 2012, 23:24:15
or . . .   this + the Canada sponsored meeting of foreign buyers looks more like the pre negotiating prepare the ground moves.

The intended audience is LochMart.  Sending them some messages, putting them on notice.
We'll see....

<shrug> I'm gonna stick with my long held opinion- we should have tendered it. In an ideal world we'd have the money to buy this much plane, but we don't. We don't need the new off the lot Cadillac when there are 4.5 or 4.75 gen fighters out there that will satisfy Canada's requirements as well or nearly as well without emphasizing capabilities we don't realistically need, and without reducing the number of airframes we get due to exorbitant price. I'd love to see us have some, don't get me wrong, but the opportunity cost seems too high.
Yup
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 13, 2012, 23:26:41
<shrug> I'm gonna stick with my long held opinion- we should have tendered it. In an ideal world we'd have the money to buy this much plane, but we don't. We don't need the new off the lot Cadillac when there are 4.5 or 4.75 gen fighters out there that will satisfy Canada's requirements as well or nearly as well without emphasizing capabilities we don't realistically need, and without reducing the number of airframes we get due to exorbitant price. I'd love to see us have some, don't get me wrong, but the opportunity cost seems too high.

Interesting post, so I'll only ask two questions:

What exactly are the capabilities which we don't realistically need, and why is it that we don't need them?

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: HeavyHooker on March 13, 2012, 23:55:57
Quote
<shrug> I'm gonna stick with my long held opinion- we should have tendered it. In an ideal world we'd have the money to buy this much plane, but we don't. We don't need the new off the lot Cadillac when there are 4.5 or 4.75 gen fighters out there that will satisfy Canada's requirements as well or nearly as well without emphasizing capabilities we don't realistically need, and without reducing the number of airframes we get due to exorbitant price. I'd love to see us have some, don't get me wrong, but the opportunity cost seems too high.

Well said.  100% agree here.

Quote
F-35's  ISR & EW capabilities will provide the RCAF with a whole new non kinetic operational  capability.

Is this the best platform for ISR and EW?  I think recent conflicts have proven that UAV and retrofitted civil aircraft (ie. King Air) can complete these tasks considerably better at drastically reduced cost so not sure that ISR and EW are the best selling points for the F-35.  To acquire more Gen 4+ aircraft at reduced cost still makes more sense to me.  At the very least, it is worth serious consideration.
HH
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Brihard on March 14, 2012, 00:00:33
Interesting post, so I'll only ask two questions:

What exactly are the capabilities which we don't realistically need, and why is it that we don't need them?

I cannot profess expertise, so recognize my words as those of a layman and as a concerned taxpayer. And I'm not saying that capabilities are completely unneeded, but that the desirability of some capabilities is outweighed by the dual concerns of other capabilities of higher importance, and the detrimental effect on the total fleet of buying a smaller number of highly technological planes that are likely overkill for much of what we do.

The first and foremost one is that I don't see the need for what is, in effect, a 'first strike' aircraft designed to penetrate air defense. Nice capability to have? crap yet. But it's coming at the cost of more airframes that would in any realistic context likely be just as effective at the more realistic tasks our jets will face- defending our airspace as part of NORAD in combination with ground based radar and AWACS, and providing support to either coalition tactical bombing operations or close air support of our own troops in permissive airspace that the Americans have already swept clean.

Absolutely it's a tradeoff to give up the advantage of cutting edge stealth, but the cost of being able to be in the first wave of an attack that has to penetrate air defense seems to me to not be worth fewer aircraft that don't really excel in any one thing in particular.

The acquisition of F-35 touts interoperability with other air forces, and in that signs its own condemnation- we will realistically not be working without the Americans in any operation where the need to suppress air defense and win an air war is there, and so why pretend we'll ever be in a position to do it as well as they can? Better that we can provide our own very credible contribution to other tasks- the opportunity cost of a cutting adge aircraft is damned high, and only getting higher. There are other airframes out there that have what it is we're looking for, and the electronic guts can be developed to bring them up to snuff in areas where the F-35 has them beat currently.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: D3 on March 14, 2012, 00:03:36
Well said.  100% agree here.

Is this the best platform for ISR and EW?  I think recent conflicts have proven that UAV and retrofitted civil aircraft (ie. King Air) can complete these tasks considerably better at drastically reduced cost so not sure that ISR and EW are the best selling points for the F-35.  To acquire more Gen 4+ aircraft at reduced cost still makes more sense to me.  At the very least, it is worth serious consideration.
HH

+1

Having had some involvement with requirements for some capabilities that fall withing ISR, the utility of the F-35 for those roles is very overstated no matter how hard the sales pitch was.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Brihard on March 14, 2012, 00:35:58
...did I just... NOT... get dogpiled on an F-35 thread? The hell?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Dimsum on March 14, 2012, 01:56:41
+1

Having had some involvement with requirements for some capabilities that fall withing ISR, the utility of the F-35 for those roles is very overstated no matter how hard the sales pitch was.

Agree.  Fighters are not good ISR platforms in general.  ISR is best high and slow, not low (or high) and fast.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Journeyman on March 14, 2012, 02:48:27
Agree.  Fighters are not good ISR platforms in general.  ISR is best high and slow, not low (or high) and fast.
Yep, that SR-71 was abysmal at the high, fast stuff.

Light-hearted mocking aside, a recurring problem with military thinking is the use of acronyms without thinking them through. Spell out "I" "S" and "R" and then argue your case -- threats (most likely/most dangerous), platform, current need, future need, doctrine, training, personnel.....you know, all that stuff.




But I'm just an Army guy  ;)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Dimsum on March 14, 2012, 03:01:29
Yep, that SR-71 was abysmal at the high, fast stuff.

The SR-71 was great for getting good, quick snapshots of heavily-contested areas.  It wouldn't be the ideal platform for Pattern of Life stuff, where you'd want something that could hang around for hours (days?) and just see what's going on.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Journeyman on March 14, 2012, 03:18:32
It wouldn't be the ideal platform for Pattern of Life stuff, where you'd want something that could hang around for hours (days?) and just see what's going on.
Thank you. It's not great for "surveillance"; it wasn't too shabby for "reconnaissance" -- at the supposed 'strategic-level.'

My point was, if someone blithely says "ISR platform" without thinking what "ISR" means, then it becomes......well, meaningless.


As you can gather, I have heartache with some terminology. We can debate "strategic" if you like, but that's a separate, pedantic thread  ;D
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 14, 2012, 08:03:46
...did I just... NOT... get dogpiled on an F-35 thread? The hell?
Wait for it... :)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 14, 2012, 08:04:03
From my perspective, as an EW practitioner, it is not so much tasking the F-35 as a dedicated "ISR aircraft" as much as it is a case of the F-35 being a sensor itself. In the normal course of doing its "fighter" mission, the F-35's system can provide a wealth of information in the realm of EW that has implications beyond the tactical level.

I'm not a fighter guy but it seems to me that the technology in those systems and the F-35 itself are not tied to each other. I doubt that you could not incorporate something like DAS, for example, into a Typhoon or Raffale.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 14, 2012, 09:11:19
Well said.  100% agree here.

Is this the best platform for ISR and EW?  I think recent conflicts have proven that UAV and retrofitted civil aircraft (ie. King Air) can complete these tasks considerably better at drastically reduced cost so not sure that ISR and EW are the best selling points for the F-35.  To acquire more Gen 4+ aircraft at reduced cost still makes more sense to me.  At the very least, it is worth serious consideration.
HH

Since the ISR & EW capabilities  on the F-35 are a closely guarded secret, we don't know for sure.

One thing we do know is there is a better chance of the Buds winning back to back Cups happening before Canada will acquire any dedicated ISR and or EW aircraft. Not going to happen

If we acquire other aircraft  we get a repeat of CF-18 capabilities.  Only the F-35 extends the capabilities envelope.

Makes know sense for Canada to acquire lesser capability aircraft that will be obsolete in a few years - especially if they already cost more.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 14, 2012, 09:38:12

One thing we do know is there is a better chance of the Buds winning back to back Cups happening before Canada will acquire any dedicated ISR and or EW aircraft. Not going to happen


Since the terms "ISR" and "EW" are quite broad by definition, Canada does indeed already have one. There is much more to an "EW aircraft" than Wild Weasel or EA-type aircrafts.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Journeyman on March 14, 2012, 10:12:05
Only the F-35 extends the capabilities envelope.
I've yet to see a logical argument supporting a need for those increased capabilities. What threat are we not currently countering with extant technology or is there some doctrinal gap the CF is missing?

If this is nothing more than technology-driven penis envy, we can't afford to play this game.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on March 14, 2012, 11:39:55
I've yet to see a logical argument supporting a need for those increased capabilities. What threat are we not currently countering with extant technology or is there some doctrinal gap the CF is missing?

If this is nothing more than technology-driven penis envy, we can't afford to play this game.

Oh yeah ?
"Anyone who questions the F-35 is a troop-hating, Taliban-loving, stupid, commie leftard."
 :rage:  ;D

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on March 14, 2012, 14:05:48
I've yet to see a logical argument supporting a need for those increased capabilities. What threat are we not currently countering with extant technology or is there some doctrinal gap the CF is missing?

If this is nothing more than technology-driven penis envy, we can't afford to play this game.

The Auditor Generals report on the F-35 buy is due in a few weeks. They'll probably look at the need for those capabilities, they did in the report on the F-18 upgrade.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200411_03_e_14907.html

Hopefully this time the RCAF came up with a better justification for the numbers required than being "financially reasonable".
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 14, 2012, 14:08:36
The Auditor Generals report on the F-35 buy is due in a few weeks.
That makes me wonder more about a possible :foilhat: reason for the change of messaging....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PPCLI Guy on March 14, 2012, 15:25:17
Only the F-35 extends the capabilities envelope.

By that logic, "only" MLRS, nuclear submarines, attack helicopters etc would be acceptable.  The reason we don't have those ca[pabilities is that we cannot afford them.  What makes fighters any different?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Colin P on March 14, 2012, 15:43:52
Since the ISR & EW capabilities  on the F-35 are a closely guarded secret, we don't know for sure.

One thing we do know is there is a better chance of the Buds winning back to back Cups happening before Canada will acquire any dedicated ISR and or EW aircraft. Not going to happen

If we acquire other aircraft  we get a repeat of CF-18 capabilities.  Only the F-35 extends the capabilities envelope.

Makes know sense for Canada to acquire lesser capability aircraft that will be obsolete in a few years - especially if they already cost more.

Other than the Stealth, what makes the F-35 important is the sensors and if I recall correctly there is an effort to fit the same level of sensors into the Super Hornet, plus over the life of the Aircraft that we choose, the ability of sensors to collect information will expand and likely with a weight loss benefit. So if we were to buy a non-F35 airframe , there is nothing to say that a mid life may give it advantages that out strips the current abilities of the F-35. In fact I suspect that someone right now could even plot the likely benefit curve even without a radical invention being thrown into the mix.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PuckChaser on March 14, 2012, 23:35:39
I don't think Boeing is going to be able to release a "mid-life upgrade" kit that gives the Super Hornet stealth capabilities. What are they going to make, bolt on panels?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Journeyman on March 15, 2012, 03:03:03
OK...again....talk us (me) through an adversary's capability and credible threat (or even risk) scenario, that Canada must have a Gen 5 fighter to lead in a 'stealth' environment, where the USAF would not have already cleared the path.

In a similar high-risk environment (and I'm thinking, at the time, Kosovo and/or Gulf War 1 AND 2), did the US not take the lions' share of the burden? Would any imaginative scenario you come up with be different?



Edit: big words got away from me
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PuckChaser on March 15, 2012, 05:04:44
Well, if we're going to just let the US handle everything we should sell off the Globemasters and get rid of the armed Griffons because we can just let them do our heavy lift and armed escorts for us. If we cheap out and get a Gen 4 fighter when a Gen 5 was just as affordable and met our operational requirements, and that Gen 4 is shot down because it was detected before our pilot got a shot off, do you want to be the guy that goes with the Padre to that pilot's spouse and say "Sorry, we thought we'd save some cash by buying old design fighters".
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 15, 2012, 05:48:22
I don't think Boeing is going to be able to release a "mid-life upgrade" kit that gives the Super Hornet stealth capabilities. What are they going to make, bolt on panels?


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/farnborough/?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3Aaf81e61b-7188-4a72-8f39-d3869b7980c2Post%3Afeb0685f-4b71-457a-8b95-db6887068567
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 15, 2012, 07:30:00
From Question Period yesterday (http://tinyurl.com/hansard-14mar12-harper-f35), this time from the PM:
Quote
Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, on the subject of electoral fraud, the Prime Minister, on April 8, 2011, in the middle of the election campaign, talked about the F-35 contract. He said, “the contract we've signed shelters us from any increase in those kinds of costs. We're very confident of our cost estimates”. His ministers are telling us now that there is no contract, that there is no assurance with respect to cost and, in fact, that signing a contract is a matter of if and when.

    Was the Prime Minister telling the truth when he spoke to the people of Canada on April 8, 2011, about a so-called contract, yes or no?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of public record. At the time, I was referring to a memorandum of understanding. It has not been a secret that the government has not signed a contract. The fact is our country does not pay any increase on the development cost. That is the arrangement. It is also a fact that we have provisioned in our budget funds for future aircraft and we are prepared to live within that budget.

And what Associate Minister Fantino had to say (http://tinyurl.com/hansard-14mar12-fantino-f35):
Quote
The Royal Canadian Air Force plays a vital role in protecting our sovereignty and defending our interests at home and abroad. Canada's CF-18s are nearing the end of their usable lives. Canada is one of nine partner nations in the F-35 program, and has been so for 15 years.

    However, a contract has not been signed for replacement aircraft. We have set a budget for replacement aircraft. We have been clear that we will operate within that budget.

    We will continue to ensure our men and women receive the tools they need to carry out the jobs we ask of them.

(….)

    Mr. Speaker, there was a time when a whole lot of noise was coming from the member opposite about there not being any other plan. Now that we have one, we are being criticized. That is the no defence party attitude.

    Our position has not changed. We remain committed to the joint strike fighter program, as have the other partners. A budget has been allocated. We have not as yet signed an order for any aircraft.

(….)

    Mr. Speaker, I have been clear in the past and I will repeat. When the current aircraft come to the end of their useful lives, we will ensure that our men and women in uniform have the best equipment necessary to do the important job we ask of them.

    However, a contract for replacement aircraft has not as yet been signed.

(….)

    Mr. Speaker, stating comments by the member opposite does not make them true. The member opposite criticizes but demonstrates very little knowledge about the intricacies of this particular program. Yesterday he expressed surprise that we had not signed a contract, saying it was astounding.

    Canada has been involved in this project since 1997. We are not backing out. We are being careful about spending taxpayers' money, making sure we do the absolute right thing for our men and women in the military, as well as for all Canadians.

And a bit more from the Associate Minister (http://tinyurl.com/hansard-14mar12-fantino-f35-2):
Quote
Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, for 18 months now, the Liberals have been telling the Minister of National Defence that there must be a tendering process to replace the CF-18. But the minister insists that the F-35 is the only aircraft capable of doing the job. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars here.

    The minister likes to spring to his feet 10 seconds before the end of the question in order to give the impression that he knows his files. I am asking him to spring to his feet today and tell us that the F-35 is the only aircraft capable of replacing the CF-18.

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the Liberals initiated Canada's involvement in the joint strike fighter program in 1997, and in so doing committed over $100 million to get things started. Now they are turning their backs on the program. They have cold feet and they are flip-flopping. We are not. We remain committed to making sure our men and women in the military have the absolutely right tools to do their jobs and do so for the good of Canadians.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 15, 2012, 09:24:10
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/farnborough/?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3Aaf81e61b-7188-4a72-8f39-d3869b7980c2Post%3Afeb0685f-4b71-457a-8b95-db6887068567

From Boeing...

Quote
The company wants a customer to fund more development and integration and test the improvements.

Do we really want to be the guinea pig, and even moreso, can we afford to be?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PuckChaser on March 15, 2012, 09:34:00

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/farnborough/?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3Aaf81e61b-7188-4a72-8f39-d3869b7980c2Post%3Afeb0685f-4b71-457a-8b95-db6887068567

So we bail on an aircraft because we think the testing program that's already underway is going to put things behind schedule and make it more expensive to buy onto an aircraft that may or may not be able to develop stealth capabilities and will only start when they start having money pumped into it by the partner nation?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on March 15, 2012, 09:43:36
OK...again....talk us (me) through an adversary's capability and credible threat (or even risk) scenario, that Canada must have a Gen 5 fighter to lead in a 'stealth' environment, where the USAF would not have already cleared the path.

In a similar high-risk environment (and I'm thinking, at the time, Kosovo and/or Gulf War 1 AND 2), did the US not take the lions' share of the burden? Would any imaginative scenario you come up with be different?



Edit: big words got away from me

I challenge anyone to respond to Journeyman's points with an equally intelligent  comment defending a "it's F-35 and nothing else" argument.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 15, 2012, 09:55:13
So we bail on an aircraft because we think the testing program that's already underway is going to put things behind schedule and make it more expensive to buy onto an aircraft that may or may not be able to develop stealth capabilities and will only start when they start having money pumped into it by the partner nation?

Just responding to your "What's Boeing gonna do" comment. Nothing else.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 15, 2012, 10:34:03
I cannot profess expertise, so recognize my words as those of a layman and as a concerned taxpayer. And I'm not saying that capabilities are completely unneeded, but that the desirability of some capabilities is outweighed by the dual concerns of other capabilities of higher importance, and the detrimental effect on the total fleet of buying a smaller number of highly technological planes that are likely overkill for much of what we do.

Don't worry, I'm not professing expertise either.  I'm just looking at things from a different point of view than you are.  :)

The first and foremost one is that I don't see the need for what is, in effect, a 'first strike' aircraft designed to penetrate air defense. Nice capability to have? crap yet. But it's coming at the cost of more airframes that would in any realistic context likely be just as effective at the more realistic tasks our jets will face- defending our airspace as part of NORAD in combination with ground based radar and AWACS, and providing support to either coalition tactical bombing operations or close air support of our own troops in permissive airspace that the Americans have already swept clean.

You're not the first to believe that this plane is a first strike aircraft.  Might I stipulate that, based on what we've all seen recently in Libya, that the first strike role will always be handled by either B-2's or Tomahawk cruise missiles, and get your reaction to that?  As well, I would put forth to you that it isn’t the “stealth” properties of the aircraft which are resulting in the cost overruns.  Finally, the decision to be a first strike nation entirely depends on a political decision to be involved.  Just because we have hardware that could be used in a certain way doesn’t mean that we’ll ever have the political will to use it.

When it comes to defending our airspace, we shouldn’t even be talking about the planes stealth capabilities as they won’t be used for such a purpose.  As we know, the USAF is using their F-22’s for Combat Air Patrols (CAP) and they outfit them with external tanks and AMRAAM’s, thus nullifying their stealth capabilities.

With regards to coalition bombing ops or CAS of our own troops, I would put forth that new, mobile SAM technologies will always remain a threat to any aircraft in theatre.  Giving the pilot a low observable (LO) aircraft would ensure that he/she is properly protected against such a threat, something which current airframes cannot provide.

…not be worth fewer aircraft that don't really excel in any one thing in particular.

I think that the reality is such that we will never buy an aircraft that excels at one thing in particular, but rather, we buy a multirole plane that allows us to defend our airspace and that also allows us to support NATO or UN missions which we find ourselves part of.  That’s why planes like the Raptor, Eurofighter, and Tornado, aren’t part of the conversation – along with other factors such as cost (Eurofighter is more expensive than the F-35A), unattainability (US won’t sell any Raptors), and age (Tornado is on its last legs).

The acquisition of F-35 touts interoperability with other air forces, and in that signs its own condemnation- we will realistically not be working without the Americans in any operation where the need to suppress air defense and win an air war is there, and so why pretend we'll ever be in a position to do it as well as they can?

I’m sorry, but I adamantly disagree with you.  Suppression of enemy air defences, or SEAD, will always play a part in any situation we find ourselves in.  As well, the notion that we “can’t do it as well as they can” is misplaced.  I think we can do it just as well as they can, and our pilots demonstrate that ability every time they enter a conflict zone.

Better that we can provide our own very credible contribution to other tasks- the opportunity cost of a cutting adge aircraft is damned high, and only getting higher. There are other airframes out there that have what it is we're looking for, and the electronic guts can be developed to bring them up to snuff in areas where the F-35 has them beat currently.

A few points…

You’re right – the cost is high.  But at least with the F-35 we’re not picking up the development tab – something that we would be doing with both the Super Hornet International Roadmap and the F-15 Silent Eagle.  That would be costing us more money…so how would that be better?

With regards to the “electronic guts” being developed to bring them up to snuff to compete with the F-35, I think that would be a long way off.  Lockheed Martin has the Distributed Aperture System working well, and a couple of us believe that is what truly sets the F-35 apart from everything else flying.  In my opinion, I don’t think Lockheed Martin would ever sell that type of technology independently, as a standalone item.  I might be wrong, and may be proven wrong by Lockheed, but I’ll wait until that day happens to say that I was wrong.

Thanks for sharing your points of view, hope you enjoy mine!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 15, 2012, 10:51:55
OK...again....talk us (me) through an adversary's capability and credible threat (or even risk) scenario, that Canada must have a Gen 5 fighter to lead in a 'stealth' environment, where the USAF would not have already cleared the path.

In a similar high-risk environment (and I'm thinking, at the time, Kosovo and/or Gulf War 1 AND 2), did the US not take the lions' share of the burden? Would any imaginative scenario you come up with be different?

In Gulf War 1, the Coalition lost 52 fixed-wing aircraft and 23 helicopters during Desert Storm, with 39 fixed-wing aircraft and 5 helicopters lost in combat. One coalition fighter may have been lost in air-air combat, a U.S. Navy F/A-18 piloted by Scott Speicher. Other claims include an RAF Tornado GR.1A piloted by Gary Lennox and Adrian Weeks however the Tornado in question crashed to the ground due to pilot error on a different date than the supposed air-to-air kill is claimed to have taken place. One B-52G was lost while returning to its operating base on Diego Garcia, when it suffered a catastrophic electrical failure and crashed into the Indian Ocean killing 3 of the 6 crew members on board. The rest of the Coalition losses came from anti-aircraft fire. The Americans lost 28 fixed-wing aircraft and 5 helicopters; the British lost 7 fixed-wing aircraft; the Saudi Arabians lost 2; the Italians lost 1; and the Kuwaitis lost 1.

With regards to Kosovo, a USAF F-117 and F-16 were shot down by forces using mobile SAM sites.  There was also a second F-117 which took enough damage that rendered it unflyable after it returned to base.  All of this happened after the US had "cleared the path".

Would suggest you read the link posted below, and then ask yourself what the results would be like if the coalition were to go into countries with even more advanced SAM weaponry.

Quote
Enemy Methods

The Iraqis and Serbs both used Soviet-designed and supplied antiaircraft missilesand artillery. Both missile types that shot down USAF airplanes over the former Yugoslavia had also destroyed USAF airplanes over Iraq. Although the hardware was basically the same, the Iraqis and Serbs used different methods.

Link -> http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070912-043.pdf
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Journeyman on March 15, 2012, 11:55:07
SAMs will always be a threat, and technology is always move/counter-move/counter-counter-move.

If I can steal a line from Colin S. Gray, "...although it is sensible to anticipate growth in the lethality if late-model air defences, there are no very good grounds for pessimism over the prospects for US airpower to achieve tolerable survivability by tactical skill and technical excellence."1 Aircraft do get shot down, with the odds increasing as you go against a more technologically competent adversary. For that reason offensive air operations occur as a complete strike package; the USN will launch EA-6B and F-18 together for SEAD, with E-2C for airborne control, and F-18s for the actual strike. They don't pretend to have one all-singing/all-dancing aircraft that will do it all. But yes, even after a SEAD package goes through, aircraft get shot down. It's a reality that I understand. If that is unacceptable, then get out of the "in harm's way" business.



What I'm saying is, in the long run aircraft type is of lesser significance than getting the strategy right -- what do we want our aircraft to accomplish? Sure, I'd love to have the coolest, latest technology, but in the absence of justification -- ok, rational justification (wringing one's hands and saying "do you want to go with the Padre..." doesn't cut it) -- I've still not seen anything to warrant that sort of expenditure.


1. Colin S. Gray, "Understanding Airpower: Bonfire of the Fallacies," Strategic Studies Quarterly, Winter 2008, 74.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on March 15, 2012, 12:18:26
JM,

True that technology constantly evolves in "tactical bounds" as everyone searches for an open flank, but unlike the "Race to the sea" the search is not defined by a clear limit.

Would you trust to a fleet of "little Willies" or even LAVs to bring you success against an enemy equipped with Javelins held at the Section level?   Or would you want something a bit more robust even though you know that as soon as you field the latest and greatest someone will be fielding a Javelin II with greater range and lethality and at a fraction of the cost?

I don't dispute your emphasis on TTPs but surely even the best TTPs are more successful when founded on the basis of the best available kit? 

2 guid Scots groats. :piper:

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on March 15, 2012, 13:02:42
And we need a few of these too right ?

http://www.vaq132.navy.mil/

Boeing EA-18G Growler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on March 15, 2012, 14:32:39
Quote
With regards to Kosovo, a USAF F-117 and F-16 were shot down by forces using mobile SAM sites.  There was also a second F-117 which took enough damage that rendered it unflyable after it returned to base.  All of this happened after the US had "cleared the path".

The F-117's were lost after repeatedly flying down the same path for several nights. I would submit you'd get the same results from F-35's if you did the same thing.

The F-16 was a Wild Weasel. Getting shot down is not exactly unexpected in that job regardless of which platform you're using. Beyond that, there's been one loss (an A-10) to SAM since 1991. That's not very many for all the flight hours logged.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 15, 2012, 21:54:32
If the draft doesn't change, prepare for the pile-on....
Quote
Canada’s new federal spending watchdog is set to deliver a scathing report on the F-35 fighter jet program early next month that will make distinctly unpleasant reading for the Conservative government.

The first draft of the report on replacing Canada’s fighter jets by new Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson, is said to charge the Department of National Defence with misleading Parliament, according to someone who has read it.

Neither DND nor the Auditor-General’s office would be drawn on the contents of the report ahead of its release on April 3 ....
National Post, 15 Mar 12 (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/15/john-ivison-ag-to-deliver-scathing-report-on-f35s/)

CAVEAT:  There can be a HUGE difference between review drafts and final versions (agreed to by all parties) that end up coming out at the end of the government sausage machine.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 15, 2012, 22:28:20
This is extracted from Ivision's story, above:

Quote
The department has a similarly long-standing predisposition for bamboozling its political masters. Previous Auditor-General reports in 2006 and 2010 have blasted DND for deliberately low-balling costs, in order to get the kit it wants. Two years ago, Sheila Fraser concluded National Defence knew the Chinook heavy lift helicopter it wanted to buy was not an “off the shelf” model, with a relatively low risk of cost and time overruns. Yet the department did not reveal this to Treasury Board when it sought project approval. As a result, the cost of the 15 Chinooks more than doubled to $4.9-billion and the helicopters still have not been delivered.

A similar story accompanied the purchase of 28 maritime helicopters, according to Ms. Fraser, who lamented the gaps in the fullness of information supplied to MPs. “[DND] under-estimated and under-stated the complexity and developmental nature of the helicopters it intended to buy,” she said.


Fraser fired a pretty stern warning shot across DND's bows; misleading parliament is, just about, the most serious "crime" a senior public servant can commit; if cabinet concludes that it, too, was misled then, I expect to see heads (CAS? ADM (Mat)? even higher up the food chain?) roll. Equally, if cabinet concludes that it was misled it will have a perfect excuse to save a whole piss-pot full of near term money by telling DND to find a way to further life extend the CF-18 (OK, so it's impossible - trust me, cabinet will not listen to that argument) while the government, not just DND or the CF, completely rethinks why we have high performance fighter jets.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 16, 2012, 09:30:17
..there are no very good grounds for pessimism over the prospects for US airpower to achieve tolerable survivability by tactical skill and technical excellence.

Technical excellence...hmmm...sounds to me like he's suggesting that a superior technical edge works with the tactical skill you mention below.  Why have one without the other?

What I'm saying is, in the long run aircraft type is of lesser significance than getting the strategy right -- what do we want our aircraft to accomplish? Sure, I'd love to have the coolest, latest technology, but in the absence of justification -- ok, rational justification (wringing one's hands and saying "do you want to go with the Padre..." doesn't cut it) -- I've still not seen anything to warrant that sort of expenditure.

Even in its most simplistic form, we want our aircraft to accomplish either an Air to Air or Air to Ground campaign against any possible country and against any possible defences that country might bring to bare on those aircraft.  Low observability gives the aircraft the ability to fight against a larger spectrum of enemy armament.  Given that we don't know who or what we'll be going against in the next 40 years, just as we didn't when we acquired the CF-18, why not get a platform based on a system which is already successful, in low observability?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 16, 2012, 09:40:35
in low observability?

LO is great, no doubt about it. It is also a technology that is no a "holy grail". Technology development against it does not stand still.

I'm not saying that as an argument against the F-35 but i put less faith in LO than most people. SEAD and defeating IADS requires more than LO.

I'm not a fighter expert but EW and SEAD/IADS are in my area of expertise.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 16, 2012, 10:04:46
LO is great, no doubt about it. It is also a technology that is no a "holy grail". Technology development against it does not stand still.

Agree, eventually SAM and others will catch up to LO observability platforms.  When that day comes, with consistency I might add, I believe it to be a long time away.  With that being said, I think that we can all agree that it will be easier for SAM tech to first down a fighter with no LO properties before they down one that does have LO properties engineered into it.

I'm not saying that as an argument against the F-35 but i put less faith in LO than most people. SEAD and defeating IADS requires more than LO.
 

Understandable, and I agree that SEAD and the defeat of IADS requires more than LO aircraft.  I do believe that an LO aircraft, though, has to be a part of the equation.

I'm not a fighter expert but EW and SEAD/IADS are in my area of expertise.

And given what you fly, you'd know more about such topic matter than most on here.

So my question to you would be this:  would the conversion of F/A-18 Super Hornets into Growler configuration with appropriate tech and kit be something that would aid in the SEAD and the defeat of current IADS systems of those who we may find ourselves taking action against?

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Infanteer on March 16, 2012, 11:27:51
Aircraft do get shot down, with the odds increasing as you go against a more technologically competent adversary. For that reason offensive air operations occur as a complete strike package; the USN will launch EA-6B and F-18 together for SEAD, with E-2C for airborne control, and F-18s for the actual strike. They don't pretend to have one all-singing/all-dancing aircraft that will do it all. But yes, even after a SEAD package goes through, aircraft get shot down. It's a reality that I understand. If that is unacceptable, then get out of the "in harm's way" business.

Has this point ever entered the equation?

I ask because I've wondered the same thing about land/naval systems as well.  We continually cut numbers for fleets as they become more technologically sophisticated and expensive.  What's going to happen when we actually employ these things.  As Journeyman has said, no matter how sophisticated your toy is, someone will shoot it down.  How do we replace limited, expensive pieces of equipment with long manufacturing times when a wartime attrition rate sets in?  (Same question goes for ground/naval platforms too.)

What are the most recent kill ratios in air battle?  IAF in 1972?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on March 16, 2012, 11:30:34
Quote
I think that we can all agree that it will be easier for SAM tech to first down a fighter with no LO properties before they down one that does have LO properties engineered into it.

I'm not so sure that is always true. Keep in mind that LO aircraft sacrifice a lot of payload for their LO properties. Also keep in mind that an air defence systems primary purpose isn't to down enemy aircraft, it's to force them to deal with the defence systems to the point that their ability to accomplish their primary mission is diminished. It's called "virtual attrition". And it works in spades once you bring LO into it.

An F-35 carrying a pair of HARM's or jammers as well as it's internal weapons isn't going to have a whole lot less of an RCS than a Super Hornet carrying the same payload. And it'll cost a lot more to move that payload than the Super Hornet.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 16, 2012, 11:41:48
I believe it to be a long time away. 

I estimate within 5 to no more than 10 years. 

Quote
And given what you fly, you'd know more about such topic matter than most on here.

Not so much what i fly, but my current billet gives me unique insights.

Quote
  would the conversion of F/A-18 Super Hornets into Growler configuration with appropriate tech and kit be something that would aid in the SEAD and the defeat of current IADS systems of those who we may find ourselves taking action against?

Dedicated EA capability is essential, IMHO, even with an F-35 or similar aircraft.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 16, 2012, 11:51:38
I think it is also important to remember that the overwhelming majority of SAM kills were acheived not by radar-guided systems but by IR-guided missiles.

I'm looking for the graph and stats i got on course for exact numbers.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 16, 2012, 11:54:37
Latest from the PM in QP (http://tinyurl.com/hansard-15mar12-f35-pm):
Quote
Mr. Speaker, I am having a lot of trouble following the Liberal Party on this particular issue. For almost 10 years it had us involved in the development of the F-35s and spent hundreds of millions of dollars. Then, after the Liberals were defeated, they came out against it. Today they are mad that we have not yet signed a contract. Obviously we will sign a contract when and if that is the appropriate thing to do. We will always ensure that when we reach the end of the useful lives of our present aircraft that we have the best aircraft for the Canadian Forces.

Latest from Associate Minister Fantino in QP:
Quote
Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understood the answer.  I would like to quote the Minister of National Defence, who said on December 15, 2010 in the House of Commons, “Here is the truth. The truth is that the cancellation of the F-35 purchase could cost this country up to $1 billion.”  And yet, no contract has yet been signed. Can the minister explain to Canadians what he meant?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to explain one more time that we are involved in a development process with the--

    An hon. member: Explain yourself.

The Speaker:  Order, please. The hon. associate minister has the floor.

Hon. Julian Fantino:  Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of nine countries involved in the joint strike fighter program. We have been engaged with our partners in the development of an aircraft not yet purchased. No contract has yet been signed.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker:  Order, please. The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie has the floor.

Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, the government has bungled the CF-18 replacement right from the beginning. Will it now do the right thing, which is: first, define a statement of requirements based on our objectives from a defence and foreign policy point of view; second, hold an open and transparent competition; and third, choose the best aircraft based on performance, cost, industrial benefits and, I need to add, availability? In other words, do what the Liberals did 30 years ago when we chose the CF-18.

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, that is pretty rich talk from the party that sent our men and women to Afghanistan in green uniforms and wearing black boots and that cut the military budget over the length of its tenure. It became the era of darkness in the military. The Liberals are not the ones to criticize this government.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 16, 2012, 12:03:17

An F-35 carrying a pair of HARM's or jammers as well as it's internal weapons isn't going to have a whole lot less of an RCS than a Super Hornet carrying the same payload. And it'll cost a lot more to move that payload than the Super Hornet.

Except the F-35 doesn't need to "carry" any jammers because they come equipped as part of their integral and integrated EW suite and Raytheon is contracted to produce an internal carry HARM replacement.

So the RCS of that external pod & HARM hanging Super Bug will be extremely large and it will have to fly in  a package of aircraft to get anywhere near and do anything like what a single 35 will do.

So what costs more now to do that EW mission?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 16, 2012, 12:11:52
Except the F-35 doesn't need to "carry" any jammers because they come equipped as part of their integral and integrated EW suite

This is true but, there are limitations to what self-protection jammers can do. The F-35's AESA radar does have some advanced application for jamming but that is inherent to AESAs, not the F-35 specificly.

I look forward to see the results of EW-specific testing for the F-35 and see if it does deliver what the brochure says as it does indeed offer some pretty impressive capabilities. Regardless, in my opinion only, it will not be able to operate against sophisticated IADS without employing other means (EA, stand-off weapons strikes, etc...).
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on March 16, 2012, 12:19:25
This is true but, there are limitations to what self-protection jammers can do. The F-35's AESA radar does have some advanced application for jamming but that is inherent to AESAs, not the F-35 specificly.

I look forward to see the results of EW-specific testing for the F-35 and see if it does deliver what the brochure says as it does indeed offer some pretty impressive capabilities. Regardless, in my opinion only, it will not be able to operate against sophisticated IADS without employing other means (EA, stand-off weapons strikes, etc...).

And some of these wouldn't do any harm:  or maybe they could do some "HARM."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler#Specifications_.28EA-18G_Growler.29

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 16, 2012, 12:21:12
And some of these wouldn't do any harm:

I did say "EA" in my post.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Baden Guy on March 16, 2012, 12:24:34
I know, just showing off.   ;D
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 16, 2012, 12:26:40
I know, just showing off.   ;D

I think the RAAF got it right.

They plan on the F-35, bought the F/A-18F in interim but some are already pre-wired for conversion to G. This will give them a robust EA capability in adition the what the F-35 brings to the table.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on March 16, 2012, 12:29:29
Quote
Except the F-35 doesn't need to "carry" any jammers because they come equipped as part of their integral and integrated EW suite and Raytheon is contracted to produce an internal carry HARM replacement.

The Super Hornet carries internal jammers as well.

The internal HARM carriage will most likely be instead of other weapons. That reduces an LO F-35 payload to 0, and completely removes it's ability to carry out it's primary mission.

Quote
So the RCS of that external pod & HARM hanging Super Bug will be extremely large and it will have to fly in  a package of aircraft to get anywhere near and do anything like what a single 35 will do.

It would probably have to fly as part of a package, but so would the F-35. The difference is that the Super Hornet could carry enough weapons to actually accomplish it's primary mission as well as protect itself, while an F-35 in LO configuration couldn't.

Quote
So what costs more now to do that EW mission?

That would be a division by zero problem....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 16, 2012, 12:35:29
Regardless, in my opinion only, it will not be able to operate against sophisticated IADS without employing other means (EA, stand-off weapons strikes, etc...).

Agreed . .  .  however it will take a much smaller package of various assets in the F-35 era to accomplish the same mission.

Less costly missions, fewer lives put down range to get the job done.
 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 16, 2012, 12:47:48
An F-35 carrying a pair of HARM's or jammers as well as it's internal weapons isn't going to have a whole lot less of an RCS than a Super Hornet carrying the same payload.

The AGM-88E AARGM is a medium-range air-to-ground missile employed for Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD).  It is designed to be compatible with the internal weapons bay of the F-35.  It is in production and has met all objectives.  It can currently be carried on the external weapons pylons of the F/A-18C/D, FA-18E/F, EA-18G as well as the Tornado IDS.

Source -> http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.display&key=AF4153AA-5454-44D2-B01A-AA69417C5B49

Super Hornets are designed and built (EA-18G) to carry HARM and jammers, and are replacing the old EA-6B Prowler airframes in the electronic warfare role. 

According to the linked article below, there is a program in place to select the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ).  Originally there were plans to also put the technology onto the F-35, but...

Quote
Streamlining aside, contractors worry about some aspects of the project. They do not think the NGJ will be added to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on time, or perhaps at all, because there have been so many delays in getting through the JSF program basics, according to a vice president in one of the competing companies. “There is a concept for making [the F-35] an electronic attack platform, but they can’t even think about those sorts of things yet,” the official says. That means NGJ production might stretch out considerably, unless the system is adapted to other designs, most likely unmanned platforms with both stealthy and non-stealthy designs, which could be a boon to industry, contractors agree.

Quote
“There’s a discussion of stand-in jamming at closer ranges versus a modified escort [jamming] mission that would require a higher-power, standoff capability,” says a second industry executive, also involved in the competition. “The Navy’s primary motivation is that the Growlers provide the escort for the F/A-18E/Fs Super Hornets so that they can get close enough [to targets] to operate. But they can’t do that without electronic attack support. I wouldn’t be surprised if NGJ migrated to unmanned aircraft to keep aircrews safe.”

Article ->  http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/01/16/AW_01_16_2012_p27-413263.xml&headline=null&next=0

IMHO, this is where the F-35 and the Super Hornet family would work well together, hence my belief that a multi platform fleet wouldn't be a bad idea.



Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 16, 2012, 12:53:13
More from the Government of Canada Info-machine (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4111) - highlights mine:
Quote
Canada’s participation in Joint Strike Fighter program will respect taxpayers’ money

OTTAWA – The Honourable Julian Fantino, Associate Minister of National Defence, today highlighted the Government of Canada’s successful ongoing efforts to renew the Canadian Forces in remarks to members of the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI). In his speech, Minister Fantino highlighted Canada’s ongoing participation in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter program.

“The multinational Joint Strike Fighter Program represents a new model for international cooperation and development,” said Minister Fantino. “Our historic efforts to renew the Canadian Forces include participating with our allies to develop a new state-of-the-art aircraft for the 21st century.”

The Government of Canada’s decision to modernize its current CF-18 fleet ensures the Canadian Forces the necessary flexibility to transition to the replacement aircraft that will be required to protect our airspace beginning in the early 2020s.  Our Government has set a budget for replacement aircraft and has been clear that we will operate within that budget. A contract for replacement aircraft has not yet been signed.

“The Royal Canadian Air Force plays a vital  role in protecting our airspace and sovereignty, as well as  defending our interests internationally,” said Minister Fantino. “Our flexible plans ensure that our Air Force will continue to have the aircraft necessary to do the job we ask of them.”

As a result of our decision to participate in the multinational Joint Strike Fighter program, skilled Canadian workers continue to benefit from hundreds of millions of dollars in additional work that otherwise would not have existed. Since 1997, our participation has already resulted in contracts worth $435 million to the Canadian aerospace industry that employs nearly 80,000 Canadian workers.

"Our Government is proud of its responsible approach to replacing our aging CF-18 aircraft," added Minister Fantino.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: PuckChaser on March 16, 2012, 12:57:50
I think the RAAF got it right.

They plan on the F-35, bought the F/A-18F in interim but some are already pre-wired for conversion to G. This will give them a robust EA capability in adition the what the F-35 brings to the table.

I don't think we have the political will and/or public support to buy 2 airframes. If we buy a handful of F/A-18F models while we wait for the F-35, the opposition will have even more of a field day trying to declare wasteful spending in purchasing the F-35s and the cost to upgrade the 18 to G models.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 16, 2012, 13:29:02
I don't think we have the political will and/or public support to buy 2 airframes. If we buy a handful of F/A-18F models while we wait for the F-35, the opposition will have even more of a field day trying to declare wasteful spending in purchasing the F-35s and the cost to upgrade the 18 to G models.

$9B is $9B - if it falls within that budget then any combination of platforms shouldn't be an issue.

To use the Australian purchase as a reference point, though, wouldn't we have to spend MORE than $9B to get the same number of Super Hornets (65) along with training and support over 10 years? Their purchase of 24 Super Hornets cost US$4.6B back in 2007.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: dapaterson on March 16, 2012, 13:36:44
$9B is $9B - if it falls within that budget then any combination of platforms shouldn't be an issue.

To use the Australian purchase as a reference point, though, wouldn't we have to spend MORE than $9B to get the same number of Super Hornets (65) along with training and support over 10 years? Their purchase of 24 Super Hornets cost US$4.6B back in 2007.

Depends on how you do the accounting.  Different militaries have different standards, so you need to dig in depth to ensure you're comparing properly.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Journeyman on March 16, 2012, 13:37:39
Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, the government has bungled the CF-18 replacement right from the beginning. Will it now do the right thing, which is: first, define a statement of requirements based on our objectives from a defence and foreign policy point of view; second, hold an open and transparent competition; and third, choose the best aircraft based on performance, cost, industrial benefits and, I need to add, availability? In other words, do what the Liberals did 30 years ago when we chose the CF-18.
At least the Honourable Member from Westmount--Ville-Marie seems to have understood my posts.... ;)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 16, 2012, 13:42:24
The AGM-88E AARGM is a medium-range air-to-ground missile employed for Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD).  It is designed to be compatible with the internal weapons bay of the F-35.  It is in production and has met all objectives.  It can currently be carried on the external weapons pylons of the F/A-18C/D, FA-18E/F, EA-18G as well as the Tornado IDS.

Source -> http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.display&key=AF4153AA-5454-44D2-B01A-AA69417C5B49



Not sure if they have this one right.   The F-35  internal weapons bay has a restriction on weapons size of 7 inches  . . .   this puppy is the traditional HARM sized 10 incher

This advanced new version of the HARM might be for external carriage.

I think the  internal mounted anti radiation missile for the F-35  is still in development.  There was a good article a while back  . . I'll see if I can find it.

Proving once again, size matters.


Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on March 16, 2012, 13:43:30
Auchentoshan here I come....

JM quoting a Liberal.  What next? D&B citing Paddy Ashdown?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Journeyman on March 16, 2012, 13:50:42
JM quoting a Liberal.  What next? D&B citing Paddy Ashdown?
I merely quoted the post by milnews.ca....that featured a Liberal quoting me.  ;D


.....and I thought that the Paddy Ashdown spiel was pretty well done, although it ended lamely. ;)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 16, 2012, 13:52:24
Auchentoshan here I come....

JM quoting a Liberal.  What next? D&B citing Paddy Ashdown?
The world is not coming to an end - it was only to suggest JM has been correct all along :D
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on March 16, 2012, 14:05:20
The world is not coming to an end - it was only to suggest JM has been correct all along :D

Shhh... Don't tell him that.  Those people that fall out of areoplanethingamijigs have got big enough heads as it is.  ;D
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 16, 2012, 15:26:09
Not sure if they have this one right.   The F-35  internal weapons bay has a restriction on weapons size of 7 inches  . . .   this puppy is the traditional HARM sized 10 incher

This advanced new version of the HARM might be for external carriage.

I think the  internal mounted anti radiation missile for the F-35  is still in development.  There was a good article a while back  . . I'll see if I can find it.

Proving once again, size matters.

They didn't...I did.  Should have read a bit more. :)

Quote
A long term goal of the AARGM program is the development of an entirely new stealthy airframe, compatible with the internal weapon bays of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.

Link -> http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Raytheon_%28Texas_Instruments%29_AGM-88_HARM  (This page was last modified on 2 July 2011, at 10:44.)
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 16, 2012, 18:15:50
FYI . . .

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/plan-b/1511112942001

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: 54/102 CEF on March 18, 2012, 11:50:45
With Airforce pundits like this we won't be changing political mindsets any time soon

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Buying+fighter+makes+sense+Canada/6320351/story.html

I made a few comments on the attachment
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 18, 2012, 12:51:31
There's already a full thread in the AF sub forum about the F-35 - would suggest you read it and see some of the POV's of those who know a lot, a bit, and not much regarding fast air.

Here's the link -> http://forums.air-force.ca/forums/index.php/topic,22809.0.html
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: 54/102 CEF on March 18, 2012, 15:08:45
The brainy fliers we have can read and spread the news as required

My point was - Disinformed and unformed commentary by "Not for Profit" agencies (as in someone is funding them) needs to be challenged

Thanks for your pointers to the cast archive though!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on March 19, 2012, 01:17:03
This is extracted from Ivision's story, above: [article link added for this post (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/15/john-ivison-ag-to-deliver-scathing-report-on-f35s/)]

Quote
The department has a similarly long-standing predisposition for bamboozling its political masters. Previous Auditor-General reports in 2006 and 2010 have blasted DND for deliberately low-balling costs, in order to get the kit it wants. Two years ago, Sheila Fraser concluded National Defence knew the Chinook heavy lift helicopter it wanted to buy was not an “off the shelf” model, with a relatively low risk of cost and time overruns. Yet the department did not reveal this to Treasury Board when it sought project approval. As a result, the cost of the 15 Chinooks more than doubled to $4.9-billion and the helicopters still have not been delivered.

A similar story accompanied the purchase of 28 maritime helicopters, according to Ms. Fraser, who lamented the gaps in the fullness of information supplied to MPs. “[DND] under-estimated and under-stated the complexity and developmental nature of the helicopters it intended to buy,” she said.


Fraser fired a pretty stern warning shot across DND's bows; misleading parliament is, just about, the most serious "crime" a senior public servant can commit; if cabinet concludes that it, too, was misled then, I expect to see heads (CAS? ADM (Mat)? even higher up the food chain?) roll. Equally, if cabinet concludes that it was misled it will have a perfect excuse to save a whole piss-pot full of near term money by telling DND to find a way to further life extend the CF-18 (OK, so it's impossible - trust me, cabinet will not listen to that argument) while the government, not just DND or the CF, completely rethinks why we have high performance fighter jets.

Mr. Campbell, of course one must take care in depending too greatly on what the media presents to the public as 'fact', as opposed to citizens informing themselves to form a validated personal opinion, particularly when the selection of words from others (i.e. from Ms. Fraser in her fall 2010 report regarding the Chinook helicopter procurement ( Auditor General's Report - Fall 2010 - Chapter 6 - Acquisition of Military Helicopters - Medium to Heavy-Lift Helicopter Chinook (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html#hd4b) ) is often made so as to add drama ('more than doubled') to the otherwise relatively un-dramatic (increasing 14%).

Case in point, I believe Mr. Ivison uses the Chinook in his article to add a dramatic flavour of 'here we go again' to the JSF issue.  He writes his interpretation of a small portion of the information in Ms. Fraser's report, specifically that "...the cost of the 15 Chinooks more than doubled to $4.9-billion..."  What Mr. Ivison does not point out in his article is that the original 2006 figure of $2.022B compared to the 2009 figure of $4.886B included only capital acquisition costs, not in-service support costs - thus there is no qualified basis to describe costs as "more than double."

Ms. Fraser's report was quite clear, however, specifically paragraph 6.48 (see link above), that the later 2009 figure included both (highlights added to applicable wording): "In 2006, at the preliminary project approval stage, total indicative costs for the acquisition of 16 medium- to heavy-lift helicopters were estimated at $2 billion, exclusive of long-term in-service support. The cost of purchasing and providing in-service support for 15 helicopters, and of training personnel, is currently estimated to be $4.9 billion over 20 years..."

The financial chart identified as Exhibit 6.6 in Ms. Fraser's report (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201010_06_e_34289.html#ex6) more clearly details the cost breakdown, but  if one were to compare "apples to apples" (i.e. capital acquisition costs), the 2006 $2.022B compared to the 2009 $2.313B indicates a 14.4% increase [not bad, BTW, going from indicative estimates to substantive costings].  An interesting detail noted by Ms. Fraser that gets very little note in any media piece, however, is that back in 2006, DND estimated to Cabinet that the entire project would cost $6.9 billion (see para 6.67 of the report) -- or DND's final approved costs ($4.886B) were approximately $2 billion less than originally estimated and identified to cabinet. 

While the above information is Chinook-specific, if was deliberately included by mainstream media to the current JSF / F-35 coverage and the similarities in much of the media's treatment of large capital acquisition projects leaves me, and perhaps others, wanting.  I believe there is a case to be made for individuals to apply critical thinking to an issue that they are going to hold as a strong personal position. 

Myself, I put little stock in any kind of 'analysis' provided by pundit-type journalists regarding the F-35 -- I see mostly a continual rehashing and thrashing of figures, often taken out of context. 

I'll wait for the AG's report on this one.

Mein  :2c:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on March 19, 2012, 07:57:00
Except that Ms. Fraser was plowing old ground ... I well remember, because I worked near the  very top of the Mat Group in the 1980s, that we were taken to the woodshed over how we presented the costs for the CF-18. Before that I recall similar troubles over the CP-140 acquisition and lest anyone think it was an air staff problem we were "guilty" of either lowballing or, more often, creative accounting (by covering costs in several 'separate' projects) on the frigate programme, TRUMP (the DDH 280 rebuild) and TCCCS, to name just a few.
   
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 19, 2012, 09:43:19
The most common Apples:Oranges comparison presented as Apples:Apples is the DND cost vs the PBO cost.  They don't seem to get that 10 more years of Operations and two major refits difference makes the two estimates not comparable .

Mr Ivison dropped it in his article as well.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: GAP on March 20, 2012, 16:07:40
Silicon All The Way
March 20, 2012
Article Link (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/20120320.aspx)

 The U.S. Navy wants its new carrier based UAVs to understand the hand signals deck crews use to direct pilots of aircraft around the flight deck. This is because, as the U.S. Navy hustles to ready its X-47B for carrier landings, attention has also been paid to how deck crew would communicate with the UAV once it had landed. Currently, UAVs like this are moved around the landing area by their remote operators. For the U.S. Air Force, this involves a local operator, not the ones, based in the U.S. that operates these UAVs remotely via a satellite link. While the navy could go with a hand held device (like a video game controller) it would be simpler if there were pattern recognition software for one of the X-47Bs cameras that would recognize and interpret the deck crew hand signals.

The X-47B will begin landing on, and taking off from, carriers next year. Take-offs are relatively easy. The hard part is landing. Software has already been developed for this, and last year a manned carrier aircraft (an F-18), using the X-47B automated landing software, successfully landed on a carrier. Actually, this kind of software has been in development for over a decade, to make it easier for human pilots to land on carriers (the most difficult type of landing). It was not a major leap to make this software even more powerful and reliable. When the X-47Bs begin landing on carriers, it will be silicon all the way.

The U.S. Navy believes they need unmanned combat aircraft (UCAS, or Unmanned Combat Air System) on their carriers as soon as possible. The current plan is to get these aircraft into service six years from now. But there is an effort to get the unmanned carrier aircraft into service sooner than that. A major reason for this is the realization that American carriers currently have to get within 800 kilometers of their target before launching bomber aircraft. Potential enemies increasingly have aircraft and missiles with range greater than 800 kilometers. The navy already has a solution in development; the X-47B UCAS has a range of 2,500 kilometers

Last year the U.S. Navy leadership also ordered naval aviation commanders to examine the possibility of reducing orders for the new F-35B and F-35C manned aircraft, and use that money to buy the new X-47B, and similar robotic combat aircraft. The navy currently plans to buy 680 F-35B and F-35C aircraft for (on average) $100 million each. A UCAS (Unmanned Combat Aerial System) costs less than half that, and provides most of the same capabilities, plus much longer range.

For most of the last decade, the navy has been hustling to ready a UCAS for carrier operations and combat use. Within four years, the navy expects to have the X-47B demonstrating the ability to regularly operate from a carrier and perform combat (including reconnaissance and surveillance) operations. The new efforts aim to have UCAS aircraft perform ground attack missions as well, something the Predators have been doing for over a decade. The larger Reaper UAV was designed to expand this combat capability, and is being built as quickly as possible to replace F-16s and other bombers in the combat zone.
More on link
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on March 20, 2012, 21:05:30
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/19/john-ivison-f-35-bid-process-was-hijacked-by-dnd-former-official-says/

Quote
We know that the new Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson, is going to turn his attention to the purchase of the troubled F-35 fighter aircraft in his first report early next month. We suspect he is going to be unhappy that the military insisted on buying the fighter plane Holt Renfrew would sell, when it could have bought one cut-price from The Bay.

We don’t know precisely the nature of his criticism — and his office isn’t saying. But a conversation with the man who inked the initial deal on the F-35 project, as a senior official with the Department of National Defence, offers some clues about the nature of the Hadron Collider of censure that is likely coming down on the heads of the senior soldiers, bureaucrats and Conservative politicians involved in the saga.

Alan Williams is a retired assistant deputy minister, responsible for procurement at DND in the early years of the F-35 project, and recently he shared his thoughts on the shortcomings of the tendering process with the Office of the Auditor-General.“The whole process was twisted to suit the needs of the military, with the acknowledgment and support of ministers. It was totally unacceptable,” he said.

He thinks the government should write a new statement of requirement and put the whole project out to an open competition.

“You could run a competition today and have it done within two years,” he said. “You’d have to be blind and deaf not to know how much this project has gone off the rails.”

He said that in his experience, maintenance costs on sophisticated military equipment run at two to three times acquisition costs. He believes the eventual cost to taxpayers for the F-35s is likely to be $25- to $30-billion — double the current government estimate.

The 33-year public servant has no skin in this game, no clients, no political allegiances. “The only reason I’m doing this is to set the record straight and tell Canadians they’ve been misled,” he said. “The [F-35 purchase] process was completely hijacked and bastardized.”

In theory, the defence procurement process is simple — the military sets its requirements and then the procurement experts find the product that best meets those requirements.

However, in the case of the F-35, Mr. Williams said, the military “wired the specs” — that is, chose the plane it wanted and made sure none of the other contending planes met the requirements. “What you do is simply include a couple of mandatory criteria that only one product can deliver. Then you can sole source without saying you sole sourced,” he said. Both the civilians running the procurement process after Mr. Williams left DND and successive Conservative ministers have gone along with the military.

The government has stuck to its line that the contract has been tendered; that Canadian companies are profiting from industrial benefits; that our allies have the F-35, so we need it too; and that it’s the best aircraft available.

Mr. Williams said every one of those arguments is flawed. For example, more industrial and regional benefits (IRBs) would accrue to Canadian companies from an open competition. “All bidders would have to provide IRBs equal to, or greater than, the value of the contract,” he said.

He has never downplayed the technical capabilities of the F-35, he said, but suggested we have sole sourced a plane without knowing what it can do or what it will cost to buy and maintain.

The F-35 experience does suggest a process that is out of control. And we know that it is not an isolated incident. Mr. Williams said that former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, once indicated to him that he wanted Chinook heavy lift helicopters. “I said to him, ‘don’t tell me that you want Chinooks, tell me your requirements’. Almost the day I left, they ordered Chinooks,” he said. These are the same Chinooks that are at least three years behind schedule and 100% over budget — the aircraft where former auditor-general Sheila Fraser said the deliberate understatement of risk by DND was “totally unacceptable.”

Mr. Williams is outraged that the government wants to spend $30-billion of taxpayers’ money without even publishing the statement of requirement, which says what the air force needs and why it needs it. “It is unacceptable for any government not to share this information,” he said.

The whole F-35 saga reads like an episode of Yes, Minister, where the politicians pirouette to the tune played by the bureaucrats. Peter MacKay, the Defence Minister, was once asked how he knew the F-35 is the best aircraft available. The response was he read it in briefing notes provided by DND. Of course he did. The word on defence policy comes from Defence Department headquarters and it is home-made. Let’s hope the Auditor-General reminds the uniforms who pays the bills.

National Post

I realize Williams is one of "The Usual Suspects" on the subject, but surely the Hadron Collider comment is an overstatement?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MarkOttawa on March 20, 2012, 21:15:50
US GAO report, March 20:

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Restructuring Added Resources and Reduced Risk, but Concurrency Is Still a Major Concern
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/riwQoL4nzgio

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on March 20, 2012, 22:22:40
Quote
However, in the case of the F-35, Mr. Williams said, the military “wired the specs” — that is, chose the plane it wanted and made sure none of the other contending planes met the requirements. “What you do is simply include a couple of mandatory criteria that only one product can deliver. Then you can sole source without saying you sole sourced,” he said. Both the civilians running the procurement process after Mr. Williams left DND and successive Conservative ministers have gone along with the military.

Why was the JSF program acceptable to Williams and the Liberal Government in 2002, yet isn't now?  Remember that Mr. Williams was the Defence Associate Deputy Minister (Materiel) who actually went to Washington in 2002 and signed as the Canadian Government's official representative to commit Canada to the JSF program. (see p.19 of the JSF MOU (http://www.defense.gov/news/Feb2002/d20020207jsf.pdf))

It's interesting to look at Mr. Williams' words regarding the Canadaian Government's position on JSF: (Link: official DoD transcript of the JSF signing ceremony (http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2610))

Quote
Williams: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you Pete for your earlier remarks.

I too really value our personal friendship and the opportunity we have had over the last many months to work together on a number of issues. I look forward to building on this personal relationship in the future.

It's with great pleasure that I formally announce today Canada's participation with the United States and Great Britain in the systems development and demonstration phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Canada's decision to participate in the JSF program is yet another clear demonstration of the Canadian government's continuing commitment to North American security and industrial cooperation.

Participation in this internationally oriented technologically advanced program will assist us in our efforts to enhance interoperability with the U.S. and allies and provide us with a unique window into the leading edge technologies being developed for this world class weapon system.

In addition, Canadian industry will have an opportunity to provide its expertise to this important program. Through its ability to make a value-added contribution and its highly competitive position, Canadian industry will assist the U.S. prime contractors in their efforts to deliver a technologically advanced but affordable aircraft to the U.S. Department of Defense and allies.

In closing let me reiterate again how pleased I am to be working both with Pete Aldridge and Sir Robert Wolmsley on this important, innovative and forward-looking defense program.

Thank you very much.


The post-ceremony statements then were followed with a short Q & A period, and here is what Mr. Williams had to say to a number of pertinent questions (from the same transcripts as linked to above):

Quote
Q: What's the figure that you have for the expected Canadian spin-off as a result of industrial --

Williams: I don't have an expected figure. We went into this project with our industry recognizing that a key cornerstone of the success of this program is value added. May the best survive. We have told our industry that what we're doing for you as the Canadian government is giving you the opportunity to compete. We have talked a great deal with our industry, our industry has had significant discussions, over 60-some companies, with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman and others, and they feel very comfortable that they'll be able to do a great deal of the work cost effectively and provide value added to the program.

So we are not demanding, we are not insisting upon any special kind of privilege. The fact is we are in early. And that has advantages. Our companies will now be able to aggressively pursue opportunities and we expect they'll be successful in many of them.

Q: Can you give us a ball park figure of the economic and industrial benefits of the program for Canada?

Williams: There is a great deal of potential, depending on how successful industry is. I will say this. That when we talk in the short and medium term we're certainly talking in this phase, potentially up to 3500 to 5000 jobs we think. As you extrapolate that well into the future, the potential is enormous for maybe 60-plus thousand jobs. That again depends on how successful we are. But we're fairly comfortable that the economic impact in terms of jobs for Canada and Canadians is dramatic.



So Mr. William's no longer believes that the program will achieve for the Canadian aerospace industry what he said it would back in 2002?      ???


It would be very interesting to hear the media ask Mr. Williams specifically what has changed since 2002 for him to go from being an ardent proponent of the JSF to a vocal critic...


Regards
G2G
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 20, 2012, 22:32:47
Why was the JSF program acceptable to Williams and the Liberal Government in 2002, yet isn't now?  Remember that Mr. Williams was the Defence Associate Deputy Minister (Materiel) who actually went to Washington in 2002 and signed as the Canadian Government's official representative to commit Canada to the JSF program. (see p.19 of the JSF MOU (http://www.defense.gov/news/Feb2002/d20020207jsf.pdf))

It's interesting to look at Mr. Williams' words regarding the Canadaian Government's position on JSF: (Link: official DoD transcript of the JSF signing ceremony (http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2610)) ....
:goodpost:

Another reason to come to Army.ca to get the REST of the story ....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 22, 2012, 11:08:19
And an op ed piece for the pile.... 

I still wonder how many Super Hornets we'll get for $9B....

Quote
Op Ed: Fighter jet procurement unwinding

Technical glitches, cost overruns jeopardize program's viability

By Michael Den Tandt, Edmonton Journal March 21, 2012

As the Tories batten the hatches ahead of an auditor general's report expected to be highly critical of the F-35 fighter jet procurement, indications are the government now in-tends to move into a holding pattern on the controversial project, awaiting further developments in the U.S. and internationally before making a final decision on a purchase, which could come any time between six months and a year from now.

Meantime, defence industry players in Ottawa are quietly laying the table for what many now expect will be the eventual unwinding of the sole-sourced program, which has been plagued by delays, technical glitches and cost overruns, to be replaced by an international competition. The likeliest contenders, should there be a competition, are U.S.-based Boeing, maker of the F-18 Super Hornet, and Dassault of France, maker of the Rafale.

Both are twin-engined aircraft, which adds an element of safety in the far north that the single-engine F-35 does not have. The Rafale, like the F-35, comes with radar-evading stealth technology, and, insiders say, could be built almost entirely in Canada. The Super Hornet has the advantage of being in wide use already around the world, and would be highly "interoperable" both with NATO air forces and with Canada's existing, aging fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighters.

So the Rafale can be built almost entirely in Canada...that's news to me.  I can see the NDP and Liberals talking points now - "So we can make our own first day of war stealth attack planes right here in Canada?  Mr. Speaker, we're a peaceful nation who doesn't need first strike capability...but since the plane is French, we'll disregard that point for now." 

And I had no idea the Super Hornet was in wide use around the world....unless they mean where they are currently or previously deployed.  I guess I have to believe that 24 planes in one other country constitutes wide use around the world....right?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 22, 2012, 11:17:41

So the Rafale can be built almost entirely in Canada...that's news to me. 

Not that i think we should but, yes, it could.

Take the Saudi Typhoon buy as an example. The total buy was for 72 (IIRC) and the first (24 IIRC again) are built in the UK and the rest in Saudi Arabia.

I don't beleive that there any reason, should we chose Raffale, that licence production in Canada, could not be negotiated.

So, yes, Raffale could be built in Canada.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Kalatzi on March 22, 2012, 11:25:27
The end’s in sight for the Super Hornet. Or is it?
 By Philip Ewing Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 3:51 pm
 Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/23/the-ends-in-sight-for-the-super-hornet-or-is-it/#ixzz1pr6e28jv
 DoDBuzz.com

link here http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/23/the-ends-in-sight-for-the-super-hornet-or-is-it/

Selected bites selected by Moi reproduced under the fair dealing provision of the copyright act here

Big B announced on Wednesday that it had completed early delivery of the Navy’s second-to-last multi-year batch of Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growlers — 257 airplanes  — and that it’s on the glide slope to continue right on through into the final multi-year. That would involve another 66 Es and Fs and 58 Gs, “to be purchased through 2013.”  Under today’s deals, including existing international orders, that would mean Boeing would deliver its last jet in 2015, said company spokesman Philip Carder""


"Then there’s the possibility for international orders: “The Super Hornet is currently involved in competitions in Brazil, Malaysia, and countries in the Middle East. In addition to these countries, Boeing and our U.S. government customer are having discussions with numerous international military institutions and governments,” Carder said."


Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: MCG on March 22, 2012, 11:25:43
So the Rafale can be built almost entirely in Canada...that's news to me. 
Nearly anything we buy could be built in Canada.  However, if it is not already a Canadian product, doing this will always add cost, time, and risk to the project
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on March 22, 2012, 11:33:32
Quote
Australia Looking at Average $US70m Per JSF

(Source: Australian Associated Press; published March 22, 2012)
Australia can still expect to pay an average $US70 million ($A67 million) for each Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, even as production of the next generation F-35s ramps up.
 
The head of the JSF program for US aerospace company Lockheed Martin, Tom Burbage, said production was now running at four aircraft per month.
 
"We believe over the purchase time of your 75 airplanes, that cost will average out somewhere around $US70 million ($A67 million)," he told reporters in Canberra. "The early ones will be more, the later ones will be less. It is dependent on an assumption that we are going to go up in the production rate."
 
Australia is now committed to buying 14 of the advanced Lockheed Martin F-35 JSFs, with two arriving in 2014 and another 12 scheduled for delivery between 2015 and 2017.
 
Defence is likely to make a decision on the next tranche next year. But over time, Australia is set to buy as many as 100 of the advanced jet fighters to form the core of the nation's air combat capability out to the middle of the century.
 
Production of the first parts for the first Australian aircraft starts soon.

Australia's first JSF aircraft will be produced in what's termed Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lots, with aircraft contracted at a fixed price.
 
Mr Burbage, who is in Australia for talks with the government, defence officials and local companies making JSF parts, also responded to criticism of the program which will also supply the aircraft to the US, UK, Canada and their allies.
 
There are concerns the program is costing too much, running late and the resulting aircraft will be outmatched by modern Russian and Chinese aircraft.
 
Mr Burbage said so far, 16 top tier air forces had fully assessed JSF and they were all still backing it.
 
"So I would put my stock in their evaluations and their take on what the airplane is going to be capable of doing," he said.
 
Mr Burbage said those views counted for more than those from a series of pundits who lacked access to all the JSF information and refused to accept that it would be highly capable.
 
"I often wonder to myself how much faster could we go and how much easier would this program be if we weren't constantly in a defensive crouch, trying to hold off these allegations," he said.
 
Mr Burbage said had Lockheed spent time trying to understand the capabilities of the aircraft most often tipped as fifth generation opponents to the JSF - the Russian PAK-FA and the Chinese J-20.
 
"We don't fully understand them yet," he said. "That they are going to that type of airplane and that type of capability would indicate that what we are doing is pretty important."
 
The F-35s will be used to replace Australia's existing Hornet and F-111 aircraft.
 

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Even knowing his precedents, it is truly remarkable that Lockheed’s Tom Burbage can claim -- presumably with a straight face -- a unit cost of $70M for Australia’s future F-35s in the face of all evidence to the contrary from a wide variety of official agencies in the US and in several partner countries.
 Followers of the F-35 saga, and thus of Lockheed’s propaganda machine, will also appreciate Burbage’s blaming “a series of pundits” who have brow-beaten poor Lockheed into a “defensive crouch” as it tries to “hold off these allegations” that the F-35 is over budget and under-performing.)
 

link at Defense-Aerospace.com (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/133752/lockheed-vp-promises-%2470m-unit-price-for-australian-f_35s.html)

PS - I included the editors comments as he/she saw fit to cast aspersions - their privilege.  Having said that I bring to the reader's attention that the ads surrounding Defense-Aerospace are for:

Rafale
Typhoon
Augusta-Westland
MBDA
Renault

One might be forgiven for suspecting a bias.

If Lockheed wants to sell aircraft based on production costs alone, exclusive of any development costs, which I understand to have been the arrangement all along, then who am I, or anyone else, to gainsay them?  Apparently the US government isn't. 
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on March 24, 2012, 15:20:32
I know this article  (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9164155/Aircraft-carrier-costs-will-be-half-what-you-think-US-tells-ministers.html) is about the UK's CVF programme but as it is intimately linked to the F35B-F35C question I opted to post it here.

Some interesting points in the article.  It looks like the Yanks want to help the Brits underwrite the cost of the carriers by covering the development costs of the launch and recover systems.  There are precedents.  The F35 programme itself comes to mind as do the Trident missile programme and the RN's nuclear reactor programmes.

Quote
Aircraft carrier costs will be half what you think, US tells ministers

 The US Navy has intervened over the adaptation of a British aircraft carrier for a new generation of fighter jets, to assure ministers that the cost will be less than half the Ministry of Defence’s estimate.
 
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

8:00AM GMT 24 Mar 2012

Converting HMS Prince of Wales so that it can be used by the Joint Strike Fighter will require significantly less than the £2 billion quoted by officials, the assistant secretary of the US Navy, Sean J Stackley, insisted.
 

In a letter seen by The Daily Telegraph, he told Peter Luff, the defence procurement minister, that the necessary equipment would cost £458 million before installation. Defence experts estimate the installation cost at £400  million.
 

The letter was sent to Mr Luff before the Prime Minister met Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, at an emergency meeting about the carrier on Monday.
 

The carrier project has been overshadowed by cost and technical issues. In the Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2010, which scrapped Harrier jump jets, the Coalition opted for a conventional take-off and landing model of the new, American-built fighter instead of a jump-jet variant.
 

But ministers were on the point of changing their minds after MoD officials forecast that the cost of adapting a carrier to use the conventional planes would rise from £500 million to £1.8 billion.
 
Following the intervention by the US Navy, David Cameron has ordered a Treasury-led re-examination of the project.
 
The Major Project Review Group will submit a report on April 16 which it is understood will be considered by the National Security Council the next day.
 
The letter from Mr Stackley outlined studies concerning a sophisticated but untested catapult system to help aircraft reach take-off speed.
 
He reassured the British that the risks of the project, and of a new arrester wire system for deck landings, would be underwritten by the US, which is installing the system on one of its carriers. Mr Stackley ended by saying: “The department of navy is committed to supporting the success of the UK CVF (conventional carrier).”
 
The Americans sent the letter following tense meetings with British officials on the margins of Mr Cameron’s trip to Washington last week.
 
“They want to ensure that the information the British Government is working from is accurate because currently that quite clearly is not the case,” said a Whitehall source.
 
Two British carriers are being built, but one will be mothballed following the SDSR. Reverting to jump jets for both of them would not help American military planners, who want to be able to base a squadron of their own jets on a British carrier.
 
Separate accommodation is being built on board HMS Prince of Wales with communications facilities that would be for “US Eyes Only”.
 
There are also said to be technological concerns over the jump jet version of the fighter and the Americans might be positioning themselves to ditch it altogether.
 
“This letter could be a warning shot saying if you Brits go back to jump jet carriers then there might be no planes to fly off it,”   said a defence source.
 
Richard Scott, of Jane’s Defence Weekly, said: “The trouble the Government has is in getting reliable cost data but at least the costs the Americans are giving are quite reassuring.”
 
An MoD spokesman said: “Work is ongoing to finalise the 2012-13 budget and balance the equipment plan. This means reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme.”
 

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on March 24, 2012, 15:44:54
And then there is this from Strategy Page (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20120320.aspx) via Mark Collins (http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=958) at CDFAI.

USN thinking of chopping its F35C order and increasing the rate of deployment of the UCAV X-47B.  Together with previously discussed possible cuts to the US Marines F35B order this would be one way to reduce the costs of the F35 programme.  If the programme converted the planned F35B and Cs to CTOL F35As for the USAF then the programme could still put the same number of platforms in the air and reduce the cost over-runs.

The notion that the USN is pushing the Brits to adopt the EMALS system could also suggest that they are looking at offering the X-47B (or perhaps the Brits would use their own Taranis (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1294037/Taranis-The-143million-unmanned-stealth-jet-hit-targets-continent.html)) to the RN.

And here is another off the wall thought - it's Saturday morning and my coffee and brandy is kicking in  :nod: - perhaps it is time for the Brits to  scrap the Trident  (http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19271) and take the 1.86 BUKP annual savings (83.5 BUKP to 2062) and convert it to other RN programmes like the other CVF.  With a 2500 km range on the X-47B (longer with tankers) the CVF force could present a first strike/retaliatory alternatives for many Trident scenarios as well as being more generally useful.

PS - sorry GAP.  I knew I had seen that article somewhere before

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,22809.msg1126219.html#msg1126219

Credit where it is due.  :-[
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 24, 2012, 16:46:14
Not that i think we should but, yes, it could.

Take the Saudi Typhoon buy as an example. The total buy was for 72 (IIRC) and the first (24 IIRC again) are built in the UK and the rest in Saudi Arabia.



So, yes, Raffale could be built in Canada.

I suspect that when hey say built in Saudi Arabia they mean delivered in big sub assemblies and final assembly on site

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 26, 2012, 15:39:10
Pretty good read...

Quote
The Next Generation Fighter Club: How Shifting Markets will Shape Canada's F-35 Debate

by Marco Wyss and Alex Wilner

The international market for fighter jets is in for a period of tumultuous change. New aircraft that incorporate ‘fifth-generation’ technology will soon be entering the production phase, and are expected to enter military service in the coming decade. When they do, some producers of combat aircraft will find themselves overshadowed by rising challengers; others may cease to exist altogether. With little doubt, the fighter jet industry will become increasingly polarized. The Americans and the Russians will retain their preeminent positions but they will be joined by China. Europe, on the other hand, is likely ‘heading for the exit.’
 
Shifting technological demands and the future structure of the fighter jet industry will leave a mark on Canada’s air force. Global trends in the production of military hardware matter because where Ottawa buys its weapons can be just as important as what it buys. The arms trade is a political minefield. There are costs associated with procuring fighter jets that go well beyond the monetary value of each aircraft. The arms trade and the transfer of sophisticated military technology between states are as much driven by political demands as they are by strategic rationales. All things considered, and notwithstanding the ongoing debate over Canada’s planned purchase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the simple truth is that Canada has very few palatable alternative options.
 
The JSF remains a contentious albeit promising program. The aircraft is being produced by a U.S.-led consortium of eight (unequal) partners, of which Canada is a junior member.

More at the link ->  http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vol12/no2/18-wilner-eng.asp
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on March 26, 2012, 18:18:07
While tangential to the F-35 program, this article describes the dysfunctional approach to programs in the United States (and we are hardly immune; what other organization takes a decade to design and field a rucksack [which turns out to have the size and weight of a truck?]).

One other problem is the risk of being overtaken by events; while we know that new technologies will eventually be able to supplement or even displace existing platforms (just as revolutions took place in the past, such as the introduction of breach loading weapons, or ironclad warships) we don't exactly know when. For example, a 747 sized aircraft packing a megawatt class laser is technically feasible, but probably not doable economically just yet. Should we wait for such a beast, or carry on with what we know works?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/03/why-cant-the-air-force-build-an-affordable-plane/254998/

Quote
Why Can't the Air Force Build an Affordable Plane?
By David Axe
Mar 26 2012, 6:00 AM ET 74

Congress and the Pentagon want to commission stealthy new bombers at $550 million apiece. But it's not clear why we need so many expensive features.

 When the Obama administration dispatched three B-2 bombers from a Missouri air base on March 19 last year to cross the ocean and reach Libya, it put roughly $9 billion worth of America's most prized military assets into the air. The bat-shaped black bombers, finely machined to elude radar and equipped with bombs weighing a ton apiece, easily demolished dozens of concrete aircraft shelters near Libya's northern coast.

The Air Force points to that successful mission, and thousands of others against insurgents in Afghanistan conducted by older B-1 bombers, while arguing that long-distance, pinpoint expressions of U.S. military power are best carried out by strategic bombers. As a result, th­­e Air Force says, the country needs more and newer versions of them, at the cost of tens of billions of dollars.

Its claims over the last year have impressed Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who called the idea "critical" to national security in February budget testimony. It also charmed Congress, which in December slipped an extra hundred million dollars into the defense budget to speed the creation of a top-secret new "Long-Range Strike Bomber." Only that bomber -- among the dozens of major new weapons systems now in development -- was honored with a specific endorsement in the Pentagon's new strategic review, released on January 5.

But the new bomber's future is not assured. While Libyan and Afghan gunners may be no match, the new planes seem likely to encounter major turbulence at home, as a climate of financial austerity begins to afflict the Pentagon for the first time in a decade and other weapons compete to serve its military role.

Critics have expressed concerns that the Air Force will not fit the bombers into its budget, that their preliminary design is too technically ambitious, and that a key potential mission -- conducting bombing raids over China -- is implausible. They also have asked why new planes are needed when old ones are undergoing multi-billion-dollar upgrades.

By all accounts, the Air Force's track record of making bombers the country can afford is dismal. The B-1 program was cancelled mid-stream by the Carter administration after its cost doubled, then revived under President Reagan. The B-2 grew so costly in the early 1990s that the Pentagon ended up buying just a fifth of the aircraft originally planned.

The B-2s are actually not used much now, partly because few targets justify risking aircraft that cost $3 billion apiece in today's dollars, and partly because their flights by some estimates cost $135,000 per hour -- almost double that of any other military airplane.

The Air Force says the new bomber is slated to cost roughly $55 billion, or about $550 million a plane -- less than a quarter of the price of the B-2. If costs rise, "we don't get a program," Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz recently told reporters, citing a 2009 warning by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, an airpower skeptic, as Gates cancelled an earlier attempt to build a new bomber.

One of the skeptics is Tom Christie, the Pentagon's chief weapons tester from 2001 until his retirement in 2005. He says that if $550 million per copy is the target, "you're talking $2 billion by the time they build the damn thing .... How many times [have] we been through this with bombers? And look where we end up."

"Besides, what do we need it for?" adds Christie, a sardonic scientist who in his three decades working for the military contributed to the design of many of today's most successful warplanes. A jowly man with snow-white hair, Christie has devoted his retirement to highlighting and criticizing what he sees as wasteful Pentagon practices.

The new bomber program has been accelerated at a particularly risky moment, when its design -- by the accounts of several top officials -- remains up for grabs. The Air Force has said, for example, that it may or may not be given a nuclear mission at some point in the future, a feature that would add to its price tag. The Air Force has also said it is to be "optionally manned," meaning it conceivably could be flown from a ground station, without a pilot in the cockpit. Nothing similar, involving unmanned, armed aircraft that must survive in a hostile environment, has ever been attempted.

Besides Gates, no critic has been more vocal and posed more of an obstacle to the Air Force's bomber efforts than Marine Corps General James Cartwright, a former fighter pilot who served as the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 until retiring in August 2011. The charismatic Cartwright was instrumental in persuading Gates to kill off the Air Force's earlier effort to develop a new bomber. It wasn't until Cartwright's influence waned that the Air Force succeeded in advancing its revived bomber scheme through the Pentagon bureaucracy and Congress.

Cartwright says the nation does need several hundred new "trucks" or inexpensive bomb haulers, without fancy sensors, capable of penetrating advanced air defenses to drop guided bombs. Such weapons can cost around $20,000 apiece, or about a fifth what modern cruise missiles cost.

But Cartwright says he doubts that the Air Force can develop an effective bomber cheap enough to be bought in adequate numbers. He adds that he is not sure why the Air Force feels a new bomber is needed now and, equally importantly, why the service believes it can afford it. "Those are the right questions," he says.

A record of cost overruns and shifting timetables

The Air Force's bomber troubles stretch a long way back. The last bomber to be developed and purchased without huge cost overruns was the B-52, which began development in the late 1940s. Twice in subsequent decades the Air Force launched a new bomber program in order to replace the now-classic B-52, only to see costs rise and production terminated early. Seventy years after its design was conceived, the B-52 remains America's most numerous strategic bomber.

In 2006, under then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon blessed the Air Force's plan to produce a new bomber by 2018 -- and began channeling money into design efforts. The new plane was supposed to include cutting-edge sensors, communications and weapons, potentially including the world's first operational air-to-air laser cannon -- all of which added to its pricetag.

But after Gates replaced Rumsfeld in late 2006 and Cartwright joined the Joint Chiefs of Staff the following year, Gates canceled the new bomber initiative, citing the same out-of-control technological ambitions that caused the B-2 to cost $3 billion per copy. "It makes little sense to pursue a future bomber ... in a way that repeats this history," Gates said.

"Gates was listening to Cartwright at this point in time," says Barry Watts, a bookish former Air Force and Northrop Grumman program evaluator now working for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

To lower the cost, Gates proposed the Air Force return to the drawing board and look at an unmanned design, echoing Cartwright's own preference. A strictly pilotless bomber could dispense with the cockpit, ejection seats and onboard oxygen systems, thereby reducing cost, Cartwright claims. "Today's weapons and platform technologies allow an aircraft to stay airborne far longer than a human can maintain peak mental and physical performance."

The White House Office of Management and Budget, which vets all federal spending, endorsed Gates' decision at the time. "Current aircraft will be able to meet the threats expected in the foreseeable future," OMB said of the bomber fleet in 2009.

"The OMB statement was actually something of an anomaly," counters Deptula, a former fighter pilot and air power champion. "OMB has no military competence and should not be attributed any."

In May last year, Ashton Carter, the deputy secretary of defense, met with executives from Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Lockheed Martin to discuss the bomber and its technologies in Palmdale. "His intent was to understand what was resident in various contractors' capabilities," a source at the meeting said of Carter. Details of the meeting have not been disclosed, but when Panetta left as head of the CIA to replace Gates and Carter became the deputy defense secretary, both embraced the bomber enthusiastically.

"Rebalancing our global posture and presence to emphasize the Asia-Pacific and Middle East areas ... requires an Air Force that is able to penetrate sophisticated enemy defenses and strike over long distances," Panetta said in a February press briefing. "So we will be funding the next-generation bomber."

At the same time, Panetta required that senior Defense Department officials jointly oversee its development. He also opted to defer efforts to certify it for carrying nuclear weapons. That decision reverses the development course of the B-1 and B-2, which were designed to be negligible from the outset and then re-engineered to carry largely nonnuclear weaponry. That change cost around $4.5 billion for the B-1 fleet alone, in 2001. The Air Force has declined to say what the cost will be of "certifying" the planes later as nuclear-capable.

A cockpit without a pilot

While meant to be at least as stealthy as the B-2, the new bomber is not meant to fly mostly alone into battle, using its own sensors to spot targets and its own electronic defenses to defeat enemy radar. It "won't be a Swiss Army knife" like the B-2, explains Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis, "Instead, it will rely on its integration with other systems" -- such as satellites, spy drones and radar-jamming planes.

But one challenging requirement has already crept into the design: It is supposed to be flown as a pilotless drone with only minor tweaks. "It could be manned; it could be unmanned," Meyer says. On some missions, in short, it might look like a ghost-plane, flying perfectly with no crewmembers in the installed seats.

The Air Force is no stranger to drones -- even large ones. The Northrop Grumman-built Global Hawk, with a wingspan greater than the ubiquitous Boeing 737 passenger jet, can stay aloft for 35 hours. Even the Air Force's standard Predator and Reaper, each around the size of a Cessna, routinely fly for 14 hours or more over Afghanistan.

But the Global Hawk is unarmed, and the propeller-driven Predators and Reapers are loud, slow and intended only for patrols in undefended airspace. The Air Force has never fielded a large, high-performance, armed drone warplane -- much less one that can switch between manned and unmanned modes with minimal changes.

From the mid-1990s until 2006, the Pentagon started to develop such a drone under a contract with Boeing and Northrop Grumman. But the program has not produced a combat-ready copy.

Cartwright and Gates said they favored a purely drone bomber -- a sort of pilotless B-52 priced to buy in large numbers. But the Air Force, with a senior leadership dominated by traditional pilots, pushed back; it insisted that a drone would not save money. "By the time you look at a payload of 40,000 pounds, onboard fuel and the airframe itself, adding a crew and cockpit module aren't that big a deal," Rebecca Grant, a consultant to major aerospace firms, told Aviation Week, a trade magazine.

The Air Force also refuses to accept the notion of a pilotless bomber with a possible nuclear mission. "Could you be comfortable with a nuclear-laden RPA? I wouldn't," Air Force chief of staff Schwartz said in a recent speech, using the acronym for "Remotely Piloted Aircraft." As a drone advocate, Cartwright wanted to change that policy. "I don't remember the last time I manned an ICBM," he told a group of Washington, D.C., defense reporters last July.

But with Cartwright out of the picture, the Air Force is not about to shift positions. That means that the new bomber will retain all the risks incumbent in drone design, without the benefit of the potential cost savings that attracted Gates and Cartwright.

All three existing bombers are also getting new sensors, new radios and structural enhancements. Air Force spokesman Sholtis says that "continued modernization of existing aircraft at the expense of any larger leap in technology comes with serious risk. To the extent that we may be required to put our existing, upgraded forces up against more fundamentally advanced air-to-air or surface-to-air threats, we're looking at more airmen potentially dying and more battlefield targets not being hit."

But Christie, a veteran observer of the military services' budgetary stratagems, speculates that other factors are at play besides military need. "You have new [Asia-centered] strategy which, on the surface, would seem indicate some rationale for something like this [bomber]," Christie says. But he says it's really an effort to "take advantage of things and jump in there while we can."

Christie says the service might be acting now to prop up its budget and thus protect itself from financial ruin in the early 2020s, when two other major Air Force programs -- a new tanker and the stealthy Joint Strike Fighter -- will also begin full-rate production, potentially under a flat or falling overall defense budget.

By starting a major program now -- any major program -- the service can keep its spending high enough to fend off Pentagon planners seeking funds for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps "You strike while the iron is hot and look at where you are five to 10 years from now," Christie says. Officials think that "hopefully nirvana will come and we'll have double the budgets we had. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A version of this post also appears at the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to producing original investigative journalism.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Chris Pook on March 26, 2012, 19:00:23
Quote
The Air Force points to that successful mission, and thousands of others against insurgents in Afghanistan conducted by older B-1 bombers, while arguing that long-distance, pinpoint expressions of U.S. military power are best carried out by strategic bombers. As a result, th­­e Air Force says, the country needs more and newer versions of them, at the cost of tens of billions of dollars.

But what does strategic mean?  >:D
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Dimsum on March 26, 2012, 19:17:29
Slight thread hijack, but I love the comment in the Atlantic article by USMC General Cartwright about the USAF's perceived danger of RPA/UAV combat aircraft (esp. with nukes) - "I can't remember the last time I manned an ICBM."   

Not that it'll change any "traditional" (ie. Aircraft without cockpits are the devil's work) aviators' views on the matter, but it does show how ridiculous some of the "dangers" are.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 26, 2012, 19:19:53
Blah blah blah blah blah......(ie. Aircraft without cockpits are the devil's work) ......blah blah blah blah........

 ;D
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 26, 2012, 19:47:51
Anyone catch  CBC/Power & Politics today?

Evan had a breathtaking exclusive on the F-35 and the SOR.

There were just too many ludicrous and funny moments in one single 5 minute story but a couple of highlights.

The NDP  guy on the right half screen saying the F-35 is an imaginary plane that hasn't even flown yet while on the left hand screen they ran stock video clips of the F-35.

The LPC guy going uber hysterical (something to do with Lindsay Lohan's acting talents) about the F-35  program and how the Canada's F-35 was screwed up from the get-gp, apparently ignorant that it was the Martin/LPC government that did the "get-go"

CBC presenting Alan Williams as some kind of fighter aircraft expert.

The highlight of the segment was Mr. Williams ever so jaunty bow tie. 







Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: milnews.ca on March 26, 2012, 19:52:30
More on the CBC bit (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/26/pol-f35s-fighter-jets.html) (note - no sign of sharing the document, so we have to take what they tell us is important in it):
Quote
he federal government didn't follow normal procurement procedures to buy the F-35 fighter jets and the plane fails to meet at least one critical feature the government stipulated must be met, documents viewed by CBC News suggest.

CBC Power & Politics host Evan Solomon reported Monday that the exclusive new evidence reveals for the first time the Canadian military's requirements for the aircraft that are to replace the aging fleet of CF-18s.

Solomon said the statement of operational requirements, a document that has never been made public, outlines what the plane must be able to do in order to be purchased.

It describes specific mandatory characteristics without which the overall operational capability would be "unacceptably diminished."

One of the 28 mandatory requirements listed is for the plane's sensor requirements. The document says the plane must be capable of providing the pilot with 360-degree, out-of-cockpit visual situational awareness in a no-light environment.

"According to the U.S. Department of Defence there are so many problems with this feature that they're actually designing a backup. In other words, the plane can't do it," Solomon reported ....

.... and more face time for Alan Williams (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Lockheed+Martin+Defence+Department+clear+choice+says+retired/6361777/story.html) (with nobody apparently asking why he's changed his mind since he was working in the system when the F-35 process was first begun):
Quote
Department of National Defence officials charged with selecting Canada's next fighter jet met with Lockheed Martin — maker of the F-35 — more times than with all other bidders combined before their billion-dollar decision to select it, access to information documents reveal.

Between 2005 and 2011, officials from DND's Next Generation Fighter Capability Office held a series of meetings with five major aircraft manufacturers "to evaluate and discuss potential replacements for the CF-18."

DND officials met with Lockheed Martin 21 times over the six-year period, the documents show, and it was the only company granted face time with key figures such as the chief of air staff and the parliamentary secretary for defence.

Lockheed's competitors didn't have it so easy.

F-18 Super Hornet manufacturer Boeing landed seven meetings, while BAE, makers of the Eurofighter Typhoon, had eight meetings with Canadian officials. France's Dassault got only two meetings in which to pitch its Rafale jet, while the Swedish-made Saab Gripen was dismissed after only one.

Alan Williams, who retired from his role as DND's assistant deputy minister for materiel in 2005, said the military never seriously considered buying anything other than the F-35.

"The Gripen, the Typhoon, the Super Hornet, the Rafale — these were not on the radar," he said. "These are not what they wanted, so the meetings were mostly pro forma."

"It seems to me if you made up your mind what product you're going to buy, you won't waste time with anything else," William added ....
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 26, 2012, 20:51:15
I PVR'd the segment and just watched it again, as painfully hilarious as that was.

It seems that the "big story" about not meeting the SOR is all about the helmet issues.

Seems these highly intelligent folks at CBC haven't figured out what a Test Program is all about and that if something doesn't work perfectly as designed then it is a "failure"

Who knew that was how the world worked, how modern, highly complex aircraft are designed, developed and fielded?  So glad the tall forehead types over at CBC explained that to us.  Maybe these CBC experts could explain that to the Sikorsky guys working on  NSH or the Airbus guys working on the A400.

One thing Evan & Co. might want to do is actually talk to someone who knows about the topic. Although I would expect Mr. Williams is an expert in the minutia of procurement contracts and the byzantine world of provincial offsets, I am not aware that he has a credible background in Systems Engineering, Software Design and Development and Test engineering to make a decision about the success or failure of any any components of the F-35, including the helmet.


On the other hand Admiral Venlet has the necessary background and he's not worried about the helmet.

http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/08/f-35-program-head-expresses-great-confidence-in-stealth-senso/

Take a deep breath Evan. We know it is difficult, being a good little downtown Toronto city boy CBC type, to understand guns & military stuff, but even a few minutes of really, really simple internet research would have prevented you from making this comedy masquerading as news segment. 

You might want to consider in your zeal for an anti F-35 "scoop", some people have played you and the CBC like a cheap piano and set you up to take over the village idiot job.

On the other hand, the amusement value of watching you make a fool of yourself is priceless.

Carry on.



Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on March 26, 2012, 23:38:22
Wow.

I so hope the CBC has some flunky assigned to read Army.ca andhe/she/it comes across that post.

Excellent work Haletown!
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Good2Golf on March 27, 2012, 00:47:14
...I so hope the CBC has some flunky assigned to read Army.ca andhe/she/it comes across that post...


You don't really believe it would ever do that, do you? 


The CBC seems to want to continue to avail themselves of the services of people who were once the strongest proponents of a program that is fundamentally the very same project it was ten years ago...but now, it is politically expedient to take an opposing view.

You'll likely never see the CBC address the original competition within the JSF program itself -- a competition that took place between Lockheed-Martin (X-35) and Boeing (X-32), ending in 2001 when the X-35 was chosen as the winning design...just several months before Mr. Williams travelled to Washington to commit Canada to the program.


Regards
G2G
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Kalatzi on March 27, 2012, 01:31:54
In this case history may not repeat itself but it sure does seem to rhyme.

The last time the USAF went this route resulted in a mix of high/low cost options. Col John Boyd led the charge for the low-cost option.

High Cost - F-15 and its replacement the F-22 - Main role air-superiorty

Low Cost  - F-16 and its replacement the F-35

I referred back to the original competition that started in 1993  was was called the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter (CALF)

Perhaps future historian's looking back will decide that things started to go wrong when CALF was renamed JSF.

I also note that the M2 Bradley  development cycle was used as an example of how this type of development cycle worked out well.

Let me simply suggest that if you haven't already done so, either viewing or reading "The Pentagon Wars"might be in order.

You'll laugh!!!!!! You may cry. It's an extremely unfunny true comedy documentary.  The last part perhaps not so much.

The reason for that the above rant is that someone, pretty sure that it was the CEO of Northrup-Grumman said that if this kind of nonsense keeps going on that by 2050  that American Airpower will consist of one plane, with equal use of USAF and Navy, and the Marines getting to use it every leap-day.


Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: SherH2A on March 27, 2012, 09:48:47
More on the CBC bit (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/26/pol-f35s-fighter-jets.html) (note - no sign of sharing the document, so we have to take what they tell us is important in it):
.... and more face time for Alan Williams (http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada/Lockheed+Martin+Defence+Department+clear+choice+says+retired/6361777/story.html) (with nobody apparently asking why he's changed his mind since he was working in the system when the F-35 process was first begun):

I must be incredibly stupid, but I don't see why this is even an issue.  Why should Alan Wilson, a support person skilled in procurement contracts, have any say about which aircraft the users say they need?  Why should the budget gurus control the choice of what is needed are they the ones who will fly and fight it?

No question that the aircraft is very impressive and also very expensive.  Mayhap we are going through another Avro Arrow CF105 situation, where the service chiefs will decide getting the aircraft will cost too much that it would cripple their ability to perform their functions. That is their duty to make that decision not a TB functionary.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: FSTO on March 27, 2012, 10:05:56
Take a deep breath Evan. We know it is difficult, being a good little downtown Toronto city boy CBC type, to understand guns & military stuff, but even a few minutes of really, really simple internet research would have prevented you from making this comedy masquerading as news segment. 

You might want to consider in your zeal for an anti F-35 "scoop", some people have played you and the CBC like a cheap piano and set you up to take over the village idiot job.

On the other hand, the amusement value of watching you make a fool of yourself is priceless.

Carry on.

That was my reaction when Evan breathlessly announced the "exclusive" pictures of CORNER BROOK. Pictures that were on Army.ca about a week before.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: dapaterson on March 27, 2012, 10:11:01
I must be incredibly stupid, but I don't see why this is even an issue.  Why should Alan Wilson, a support person skilled in procurement contracts, have any say about which aircraft the users say they need?  Why should the budget gurus control the choice of what is needed are they the ones who will fly and fight it?

Because that is the division of responsibilities.  The DM runs the money, the CDS runs operations.  It's not always neat and clean, but it's effective at ensuring prudent expenditure of limited funds - both on acquisition and on long term support.

The services should not run salivating at the latest bright and shiny, screetching "I want!" like a four year old hearing the bell on an ice cream truck.  Perhaps if they didn't do that they would be delegated responsibility for their own procurement.

The services are responsible to define the requirement - what effect they wish to be able to deliver.  That is passed to the implementors, who are repsonsible for delviering the capabilites requested.  They may come back to those who defined the requirement asking for clarification or for a better understanding or for an explanation of limitations.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 27, 2012, 10:15:37
Mr.  Williams seems to be very much enjoying his post retirement media spotlight and CBC darling status.  The attempt to establish himself as a brand - the bow tie is visually stunning! - is something he is free to do.

But when you live by the selective quote and memory, so shall you be P-owned by the same.  Time for Rick Hillier to come out of the dark and put Mr. Williams most selective memory and opinions into "perspective" . . .  as only a straight talking Newfie can do ;D

The good news in all this is hardly anyone in Canada watches CBC news anymore.  The viewership that in excess of $1 Billion taxpayer's money buys every year is pitiful.

But then we don't call it the Canadian Broadcorping Castration for nothing.

One last helpful hint for Evan and the rest of the CBC.  When you are reporting on military things, you know guns & stuff, if you see a vehicle with tracks, it might be a tank, but not necessarily be a tank.

I know . . . very, very confusing.  Perhaps you could get Mr. Williams on to explain it all to you.

We do love his jaunty little bow tie.  Makes him look so smart.

Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: aesop081 on March 27, 2012, 10:21:47
That is their duty to make that decision not a TB functionary.

That is rather naiive, at best.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Thucydides on March 27, 2012, 23:01:40

You don't really believe it would ever do that, do you? 


The CBC seems to want to continue to avail themselves of the services of people who were once the strongest proponents of a program that is fundamentally the very same project it was ten years ago...but now, it is politically expedient to take an opposing view.

You'll likely never see the CBC address the original competition within the JSF program itself -- a competition that took place between Lockheed-Martin (X-35) and Boeing (X-32), ending in 2001 when the X-35 was chosen as the winning design...just several months before Mr. Williams travelled to Washington to commit Canada to the program.


Regards
G2G

While they may not ever openly admit they were taken by their commenter of the moment, I am sure CBC does have little flunkies who read websites like this looking for quotes, gossip, leads etc. A smack in the face like the one they are getting here, combined with the sure knowledge that the blogosphere is also on the case and taking their arguments apart (for the wider world to see) may make them modify their view.

In this case they will take the well worn path and abruptly drop the story like a rock when they see facts coming at them like a tidal bore in the Bay of Fundy. Notice how quiet they have been about Robocalls all of a sudden?
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Kalatzi on March 27, 2012, 23:31:54
F-35s needed to fight alongside allies, MacKay says

Link here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/f-35s-needed-to-fight-alongside-allies-mackay-says/article2383536/

Summary - That's like the German or British, or ,,,,  defence Minister saying back in the 60's that they needed to buy M60's or F104's or Perry class  to be interoperable

I say this is NATO, I mean NOT A bad idea at all.  Heck, we'll simply have what their having.

Hint I'm try to use I little satire here, in this era of fiscal prudence, lets play a game

If the CBC needs to be toned down, what is another group prepared to tone down. Example given the work of other counties  in camouflage do we really need CADPAT.

</Satire off>
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: Haletown on March 28, 2012, 10:13:52
Evan was back at it yesterday on his Power & Politics soapbox.

His argument seems to be:

1.  The F-35 doesn't meet all the 28 SOR's (the helmet issue)

2.  Since it doesn't meet all the SORs we should not be purchasing it.

The concept of something being under development seems lost to him, beyond his reasoning ability.   

It looks like he is hrather ignorant of military procurement processes but believes he has it all figured out.  Or another possibility is that Evan has a secret procurement expert, someone with an axe to grind, an old score to settle with the DND and this expert is feeding Evan with his thin gruel talking points.


Logically then, he would have to also conclude.

1.  None of the new ships in the National Ship Building Program meet the SOR's

2.  We shouldn't have signed contracts for the new ships.

I am sure that when the ship builders in Vancouver and Halifax realize our glorious CBC doesn't think they should build ships and have jobs, they will be very pleased with our State broadcaster.

Very pleased indeed.

Budget day on Thursday.  If I was the FM, CBC would be "changed". 

Very changed indeed.

That $billion++ we squander every year paying for the CBC would be a very nice add to DND's budget.

Or to put that sum in F-35 cost-speak . .   the CBC costs Canadians $45 Billion dollars !!!




Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: drunknsubmrnr on March 28, 2012, 16:34:00
We haven't signed a contract for ships. We've signed a contract determining where ships will be built if there is a contract for them. The F-35 equivalent would be a contract with an aircraft factory to build whatever aircraft is eventually picked, if any.
Title: Re: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
Post by: WingsofFury on March 29, 2012, 09:19:20
Quote
Exclusive: U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion

Updated 3/29/2012 1:28:10 AM ET

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters.

The Pentagon's latest, staggering estimate of the lifetime cost of the F-35 -- its most expensive weapons program -- is up from about $1 trillion a year ago, and includes inflation.
 
While inflation accounts for more than one-third of the projected F-35 operating costs, military officials and industry executives were quick to point out that it is nearly impossible to predict inflation over