F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[cupper]

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.

 

[observor 69]

More eye candy,

First Production F-35 Arrival at Eglin AFB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nxY9BtK_qM

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

 

[observor 69]

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.

 

[WingsofFury]

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.

 

[Edward Campbell]

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/

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?

 

[aesop081]

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.

 

[dapaterson]

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...

 

[Good2Golf]

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

 

[eurowing]

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!

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

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.

 

[SupersonicMax]

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.

 

[dapaterson]

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.

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

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.

 

[WingsofFury]

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.

 

[dapaterson]

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.

 

[WingsofFury]

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 ass 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...

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

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.

 

[observor 69]

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 ?