F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Haletown]

The practical issue with the Super hornet is that we're actually too late to purchase it. The last long lead items have been purchased and unless there are more orders the production line will close down in two to three years. We would need to make the decision within the next year or that boat will have sailed.

This also raises a much wider issue. We would be purchasing a fighter that is already deeply into its lifecycle. With the US government planning to replace it by 2030 with a combination of the F-35 and F/A-XX, we would only get 10 years of support from the US government before we would be completely on the hook for paying for upgrades and maintenence. It would be a logistical nightmare. Even now the the US government questions' the Shornet's survivability against modern Air defence systems... yet we would be purchasing it to defend our interests for the next 30 years.


Finally the industrial benefits package of the F/A-18E would not come close to matching that of the JSF Partnership program.

Good summary . . .  same  would hold true for the other legacy aircraft of the same era/generation such as the Rafale and the Typhoon.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

This also raises a much wider issue. We would be purchasing a fighter that is already deeply into its lifecycle. With the US government planning to replace it by 2030 with a combination of the F-35 and F/A-XX, we would only get 10 years of support from the US government before we would be completely on the hook for paying for upgrades and maintenence. It would be a logistical nightmare.

But it's traditional to buy US aircraft much further along in their cycle.

Actually, the normal Canadian option would be to be the Super Hornets once they're being retired from the USN.

 

[HB_Pencil]

But it's traditional to buy US aircraft much further along in their cycle.

Actually, the normal Canadian option would be to be the Super Hornets once they're being retired from the USN.

I sure hope we've learned something since the days of the Banshee. The cost of such errors are far more significant than back then.

 

[aesop081]

Actually, the normal Canadian option would be to be the Super Hornets once they're being retired from the USN.

The first production F/A-18A flew on 12 April 1980. Canada ordered its CF-188s in 1980 and received the first one in 1982.

 

[Haletown]

hmmmmm . . . maybe a game changer ?

"Republican hopeful Mitt Romney has added a new specific example for how he’d spend 4% of the GDP on defense: Restart production of the F-22 Raptor.

Romney made the statement in a one-on-one interview with a Virginia television station at the Military Aviation Museum, in which he reiterated past pledges to produce 15 ships per year rather than nine and add more than 100,000 active-duty military personnel to the force. But civilian military jobs would likely be lost. Romney is also pledging to reduce the size of the federal workforce by 10% through attrition. "

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:4cbbb840-e3ce-4c81-95e3-fe8e9720178a

 

[The Bread Guy]

In another vein....

The House of Commons is taking Canada’s auditor general to court to stop him from revealing documents around his high-profile F-35 committee appearance.

An application filed by the House of Commons in Federal Court last Friday shows House lawyers tried but failed to convince auditor general Michael Ferguson to reject an access to information request for his own correspondence.

Now they’re seeking a court injunction to gag the auditor general. It is likely the first time this has happened in Canada.

The documents in question have to do with Ferguson’s news-making appearance before Parliament’s public accounts committee in May, where he argued the Defence Department was lowballing the cost of F-35 fighter jets by billions of dollars.

On June 19, someone — the documents don’t say who — filed an access to information request to the auditor general for all emails pertaining to his committee appearance. Committees typically meet in secret to work out who they will ask to appear.

The Office of the Auditor General notified five committee clerks that were involved, as is necessary under the Access to Information Act.

House of Commons lawyers objected. They said the documents related to preparing committee hearings and thus were subject to parliamentary privilege.

“Any disclosure of those documents without the express consent of the House of Commons would constitute a breach of that privilege,” reads the House legal filing.

The lawyers also argued the House of Commons is separate from government, and thus is not subject to the act.

The pleas apparently didn’t work.

According to the injunction filed by the House, the auditor general’s staff decided the secrecy rules of the House did not extend to their office.

According to the injunction, on Aug. 17 the Office of the Auditor General notified the House it was going to make the documents public because it hadn’t found any exemptions in the Access to Information Act that “would permit us to refuse to disclose these documents to the requester.” ....

Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 11 Sept 12

P.S. - Moving the Arrow stuff to the "Arrow instead of F-35" thread.

 

[Don2wing]

  Here is an article from Defense-Aerospace.com sourced from Reuters:


Pentagon Tells Lockheed to Shape Up on F-35 Fighter (excerpt)

(Source: Reuters; published Sep 18, 2012)

WASHINGTON --- Pentagon officials slammed Lockheed Martin Corp's performance on the $396 billion F-35 fighter jet program and said they would not bail out the program again if problems with the plane's cutting-edge pilot helmet and software were not resolved.

Deputy F-35 program manager Air Force Major General Christopher Bogdan said on Monday the government's relationship with Lockheed was the "worst I've ever seen" in many years of working on complex acquisition programs.

He said those tensions posed a bigger threat to the Pentagon's biggest weapons program than even nagging problems on the plane's software, helmet and a complex computer system that manages functions ranging from parts supply to mission planning. The F-35 was designed to work with a sophisticated helmet that displays all the information the pilot needs to fly the plane.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told reporters the Pentagon had no more money to pour into the program after three costly restructurings in recent years. That meant any additional cost overruns would eat into the number of planes to be ordered, schedule delays or reduced capabilities, he said.

"The department is done with major restructures that involve transferring billions of dollars into the F-35 program from somewhere else in the defense budget. There's no further flexibility or tolerance for that approach," Donley said.

The unusually public criticism of Lockheed's work on the F-35 program followed a "very painful" Sept. 7 review that focused an array of ongoing program challenges.

Lockheed responded with a brief statement, saying it would continue to work with the Pentagon's F-35 program office to deliver the new fighter. "We remain committed to continuing our work to solve program challenges and build on the momentum and success we've achieved during the past couple of years," said spokesman Michael Rein. (end of excerpt)


Click here for the full story, on the Reuters website.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

China is building a F-35 look alike with twin engines, finally a solution to the "we need stealth" vs the "We need two engines" debate. Wonder if they would do an offset for our coal and oil?  8)

 

[Maxadia]

China is building a F-35 look alike with twin engines, finally a solution to the "we need stealth" vs the "We need two engines" debate. Wonder if they would do an offset for our coal and oil?  8)

I'm sure your future Chinese overlords would be interested in "some" type of business transaction.

 

[Loachman]

China is building a F-35 look alike with twin engines, finally a solution to the "we need stealth" vs the "We need two engines" debate.

Eight Chinese engines probably still do not come close to the reliability of one US engine.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Anyone here tell me what the percieved requirements actually are, in as few words as possible, for a new canadian fighter?

I know what I think, what does DND think?

Well, performance is more than speed, altitude, climb rate, etc.  It involved way more than the average joe canadian will ever be allowed to even know about.

Trust me, we need the JSF.  And I have been exposed to the programs.  I used to be critical of the JSF.  Until I was exposed to it.

 

[DonaldMcL]

Well, performance is more than speed, altitude, climb rate, etc.  It involved way more than the average joe canadian will ever be allowed to even know about.

Trust me, we need the JSF.  And I have been exposed to the programs.  I used to be critical of the JSF.  Until I was exposed to it.

I agree whole-heartedly we need the F35... just not 65 of them. Either double or triple the order or find something else... like the F15E  ;D

 

[SupersonicMax]

BobSlob:  F-15E is MORE expensive than the JSF....

 

[DonaldMcL]

BobSlob:  F-15E is MORE expensive than the JSF....

In what way though? Initial purchase or day-to-day operating cost?

 

[HB_Pencil]

Both (depending on which model of F-15 you buy). The F-15 is a heavy weight twin engine fighter, with an advanced avionics and two crews. SE reportedly were being shopped around at $100 million dollars, but others have been offered around $75 million. The F-15E runs 28,000 dollars per flying hour, even if the F-35 is 40% more than F-16s, its still less than the F-15E.

What? are the numbers we asked for classified?

Actually they did have numbers for some of those categories, they were just never released. Some were qualitative or an amalgamation of several quantitative figures: survivability is hard to quantify statistically.

There were mandatory requirements and rated requirements. Several aircraft were considered past the mandatory requirements threshold, The Eurofighter, F/A-18E and Rafale. The data on these aircraft are available and we can make a comparison between them. Certainly some of these aircraft possessed performance statistics above that of the F-35: The Eurofighter and Rafale probably possess higher speed and longer endurance (then again, the F-35 often has a higher operational speed because it carries its ordinance internally). However for almost every single other category, the F-35 possessed superior performance, particularly in the areas at the bottom of the list.

No, that's not how it's done; you put an actual value to your requirements; Range; 1500K, Endurance; 8 hours, Speed; Mach 2.5 sprint, mach 1.5 super cruise. I'm spitballing here, but this is more like a fill in the blanks sheet without the blanks. These are definitions for the values being looked at without actually stating what the standards sought are.

Actually that's often how its done. The US calls it Cost as an Independent Variable approach:

https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=142000

Sure you need a benchmark by which to start with, however that is often built on an understanding of what possible options there are out there, and then seeing what the manufacturers can do.

The only useful information is at the bottom; they wanted a stealth aircraft and unless i miss my guess, short of *GASP!* setting aside politics, the F-35 was the only available export-approved stealth aircraft.

Its also the newest aircraft possible, the cheapest, and possesses the most advanced avionics. Why should stealth be the only category?

 

[Shrek1985]

I agree whole-heartedly we need the F35... just not 65 of them. Either double or triple the order or find something else... like the F15E  ;D

Fastest way to kill the F-35 program I've heard yet.

Do you not know what country you're in?

I have some pie in the sky, if-i-ruled-the-world-and-we-could-shut-politics-out-of-procurement ideas, but really now? 200 or so F-35s?

Part of why i think this f-35 thing is BS is the quantitative incompetence of 56(!) airframes, but we are fighting for those and the JCS just told lockheed to fly right because the well is dry for the F-35. they aint getting anymore cash from us is ALREADY the answer from the govt, however sincere. 200 canadian F-35s is sillier than reviving the Arrow.

Well, performance is more than speed, altitude, climb rate, etc.  It involved way more than the average joe canadian will ever be allowed to even know about.

Trust me, we need the JSF.  And I have been exposed to the programs.  I used to be critical of the JSF.  Until I was exposed to it.

Honestly, unless and until someone lets me in on the big secret, i'm never going to be convinced.



I see three possible sinaeros for the F-35.

1) We suddenly realize we urgently need more and we can't get them for reasons of cost/single source/demand/priorities, ect. haha. What? is Canada going to slowly develop the ability to make them outselves, when right now they won't even let us service the paint? These are not Mosquitos here.

2) We face a threat against which the F-35 is at normal operational risk (planes do sometimes just crash, you know) against a threat which can't touch the F-35 and the whole thing becomes political kryptonite because of appearances of excessive cost, ect. "why did we spend so much on planes which only do the job as well as these other nations cheaper, less advanced aircraft."

3) no sooner do we become equipped with the F-35 than someone (likely china or russia) reveals/sells/deploys an affordable anti-stealth system. because historically that's how things like this work. nothing revolutionizes warfare. New weapons are at the height of their impact when they are at the apex of their cost and the nadir of their reliability and actual capability. Ie/ subs/tank/rifled firearms/nuclear weapons, ect.

 

[aesop081]

unless and until someone lets me in on the big secret, i'm never going to be convinced. 

Well, you might as wall walk away from the conversation then. There are some things you just do not need to know.

sinaeros

:rofl:

After that I did not bother to read the rest.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Honestly, unless and until someone lets me in on the big secret, i'm never going to be convinced.

Unless you become a fighter pilot AND you have the required security clearance AND you have the need to know, you will not be convinced?  How about you trust the opinion of pretty much every fighter pilot in Canada? I'm guessing you have some incredible insight in fighter operations we do not know about?

 

[HB_Pencil]

Fastest way to kill the F-35 program I've heard yet.

Do you not know what country you're in?

I have some pie in the sky, if-i-ruled-the-world-and-we-could-shut-politics-out-of-procurement ideas, but really now? 200 or so F-35s?

Part of why i think this f-35 thing is BS is the quantitative incompetence of 56(!) airframes, but we are fighting for those and the JCS just told lockheed to fly right because the well is dry for the F-35. they aint getting anymore cash from us is ALREADY the answer from the govt, however sincere. 200 canadian F-35s is sillier than reviving the Arrow.

Please explain why purchasing only 65 aircraft is incompetent?

Also where did the US government tell LM that the "well is dry?" If youre talking about Bogdan's statements, then he said there is no more money coming above what they have been promised. That's a lot different than what you're claiming.

 

[blacktriangle]

3) no sooner do we become equipped with the F-35 than someone (likely china or russia) reveals/sells/deploys an affordable anti-stealth system. because historically that's how things like this work. nothing revolutionizes warfare. New weapons are at the height of their impact when they are at the apex of their cost and the nadir of their reliability and actual capability. Ie/ subs/tank/rifled firearms/nuclear weapons, ect.

I'm not a Pilot or aircrew (closest I've come is being airlifted) but I'm sure the Pilots etc posting in this thread wouldn't be standing behind the F-35 if all it brought to the table was stealth technology. Depending how good of an adversary you have, there will always be technology in place or new developments that will negate certain advantages you have. Stealth or not, it's just a non starter for your argument in my opinion.