The F-35 is not dead

[Rockie]

Even in its current state, it has way more to offer than the SH. Naturally, most of it holds a security level such that we can't talk about it here.

The CF-18 had a couple of highly touted (by McD) radar modes that in reality were completely useless. Maybe you should hold off on your praise of this so far unproven airplane a little...

[YYZSaabGuy]

From today's National Post: "Canada’s multi-billion dollar F-35s ‘irrelevant’ without U.S.-only F-22 as support, American general says". Full article here http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/06 ... eral-says/, and I've copied it below for those with slow download speeds.

I'm not saying the USAF head of air combat command necessarily knows what he's talking about, but I'd be interested in Aux's or Frosti's take on his comments:

"New questions are being raised about whether the F-35 stealth fighter is the right aircraft for Canada after a U.S. general acknowledged the jet is limited in what it can do and needs to be accompanied on its missions by another multi-million-dollar aircraft.

The issue for Canada and other potential F-35 buyers is that the other aircraft referred to by the general – the F-22 – isn’t available for foreign sales because of its sophisticated technology.

Gen. Michael Hostage, head of air combat command in the U.S., said the F-35 is critical for the future of that country’s air force. But in an interview with the Air Force Times, published in February, Hostage pointed out the F-35 needs to work hand-in-hand with the F-22.

“The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform,” Hostage said. “It needs the F-22.”

The U.S. Air Force is upgrading the F-22, which officers see as essential. Without the upgraded F-22s, “the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant,” Hostage said.

The comments have sparked heated debate in aerospace and defence circles, and analyst Martin Shadwick says Hostage’s statements are bound to raise eyebrows in Canada. “I’m sure you won’t see the general’s comments in any F-35 marketing literature,” said Shadwick, a York University professor. “Canada needs a multi-role fighter and even if the F-22 were available we couldn’t afford another aircraft to fly top cover for the F-35s.”

Senior Royal Canadian Air Force officers have acknowledged they are keen to see the F-35 in Canada.

But in 2012, the Conservative government put a temporary halt to its purchase of the F-35 and appointed a group of senior officials to examine options for the replacement of the country’s CF-18 fighter jets.

That process is still under way. Public Works and Government Services can’t say when it will be completed.

Hostage’s comments echo earlier concerns by critics that the F-35 is mainly designed to strike at ground targets and is not well suited for aerial combat and interceptions.

But Mike Barton, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin Canada, said the F-35 meets all Canada’s needs. The general’s comments are a reflection of how the U.S. Air Force operates and are not relevant to Canada, he added.

Barton said Lockheed Martin has not seen any adverse reaction to Hostage’s comments from the Canadian government or any other nation interested in purchasing the F-35. “We’ve heard nothing about it impacting foreign interest,” Barton said.

The F-35 stealth fighter had become a major political headache for the Conservative government, which made it a lynchpin of their defence policy.

The controversy surrounding the F-35 purchase has centred on technical and cost issues, as well as the acquisition process. The Department of National Defence originally claimed the project would cost around $14.7 billion but then-Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page put that price tag at around $29 billion.

Auditor General Michael Ferguson also issued a report concluding that DND officials withheld key information from Parliament about the jet purchase, underestimated costs, and didn’t follow proper procurement rules.

Still, the F-35 has had strong support in government. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has labelled the jet a good deal for Canada."

[2R]

POM POMS,
Cheerleaders should have a nice pair of POM POMS.

If our allies do not trust us with F-22s ,then we should get POM POMS

If our allies do not trust us with a next generation twin engine fighter, why would we trust a single engine fighter to protect the same real estate in the artic that our friends, allies and the Russians are claiming. With a single engine slow second rate aircraft the Artic would be lost before the first shot is fired. Canada would be the only country attempting to support Artic sovereignty claims in the artic with the slowest single engine fighter. Our pilots would lose before the first shot is fired. Everyone else making Artic claims has TWIN ENGINE fighters. AND GREAT BIG ICE BREAKERS. The Chinese are building four big ice breakers.
If the Americans do not support the Canadian claims to the Artic as per the Alaska Treaty of 1845 then it opens the gambit to a complete re-negotiation to the Artic. And may advance Russian claims to re-negotiate the terms to Alaska.

POM POMS
We should get some nice POM POMS and maybe some shorter skirts

[kamikaze]

I don't see anything all that strange in that article ...

The US General is not wrong within the US context ... they have interceptors and superiority fighters to cover for other types of aircraft with other missions.

But many other countries do not. So a single multi-role aircraft will have to do. The F-35 will do air-to-air I'm sure, though not nearly as well as the F-22, it'll have to do for our needs and means.

Preliminary reports from the committee that was reviewing the fighter purchase have been circulating in Ottawa ... shouldn't be much longer until something is leaked or announced!

[nopilot]

When was the last time any real air to air combat took place anywhere in the world?

[CFR]

When was the last time any real air to air combat took place anywhere in the world?

The role of a fighter is more than just fighting. In the broadest terms it is to help gain and maintain air superiority to allow one's forces to act without threat of air attack. This can be achieved by actual combat or the mere threat of over whelming your adversary. Actual combat has not occurred in a some time where adversaries had wildly dissimilar assets. In the Gulf war and the current "areas of tension" throughout the world, the less well equipped tend to disengage rather than face the near 100% assurance that they will be shot down in a one sided battle.

[frosti]

why would we trust a single engine fighter to protect the same real estate in the artic that our friends, allies and the Russians are claiming.

Our allies have been flying F-16s up north for decades now in the USAF and Norway with engines much less reliable than in the F-35. Those environments in Alaska are much worse than what they are in Cold Lake or Bagotville. If fighter jets are needed to claim Arctic sovereignty then we are already screwed. We don't have the capability, logistics or money to operate for a long period of time in the north. It'd be better if a Canadian Coast guard or Navy boat was sent to tool around the Beaufort sea for a while. For whatever reason the Canadian government is delusional to the capability of their military for actual national defence on our home soil.

[azimuthaviation]

the less well equipped tend to disengage rather than face the near 100% assurance that they will be shot down in a one sided battle.

In most recent conflicts the adversaries had nothing with which to engage. The Serbians mustered a few aircraft, they were able to fly but had no operational capability. Went up anyways, knowing what the result would be. Takes a lot of guts I guess to go out into the night knowing that you would have a missile fired at you, and you would have to eject from an exploding plane and land over unknown terrain as the best case scenario. Five went up, none landed, but amazingly none of the pilots died. All the kills were from American F15 pilots. That display marks the last air to air "victory" of the American airforce. Will be 15 years ago next month.

[azimuthaviation]

Naturally, most of it holds a security level such that we can't talk about it here.

The secrets are held in a sieve. Its only a matter of time (possibly already passed) that all of this information will be widely available to anyone with an interest.


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-0 ... ocuments-1

A former engineer for defense contractors was charged with trying to ship military documents to Iran, including materials related to the U.S. Air Force’s F35 Joint Strike Fighter program and jet engines.

While documents accompanying the shipment indicated it contained household goods, a search revealed boxes of documents, including technical manuals, specification sheets and other materials related to the Joint Strike Fighter program and jet engines, according to court filings.

[W5]

the less well equipped tend to disengage rather than face the near 100% assurance that they will be shot down in a one sided battle.

In most recent conflicts the adversaries had nothing with which to engage. The Serbians mustered a few aircraft, they were able to fly but had no operational capability. Went up anyways, knowing what the result would be. Takes a lot of guts I guess to go out into the night knowing that you would have a missile fired at you, and you would have to eject from an exploding plane and land over unknown terrain as the best case scenario. Five went up, none landed, but amazingly none of the pilots died. All the kills were from American F15 pilots. That display marks the last air to air "victory" of the American airforce. Will be 15 years ago next month.

Actually 6 Mig-29's were shot down in air-to-air; the first one was shot down by a Dutch F-16.

[SAR_YQQ]

Our allies have been flying F-16s up north for decades now in the USAF

USAF has been flying F-15 and then F-22 platforms up north for decades.

Those environments in Alaska are much worse than what they are in Cold Lake or Bagotville.

Do you really think our fighter assets work out of YOD or YBG when they hold CADS alert status.
Hint - look up Comox, Inuvik, and Iqaluit.

We don't have the capability, logistics or money to operate for a long period of time in the north.

Source? We can hold our own in the North.

[oldncold]

the SERIOUS PROBLEM LADIES N GENTS IS>THE PEOPLE THAT PUT UP ROADBLOCKS POLITICAL AND OTHERWISE CONDEMM THE AVIATORS TO CONTINUE FLYING AIRCRAFT THAT SHOULD IN MUSEUMS WHOOPS FORGOT SOME ARE.


I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT THE ONLY TWO COUNTRIES ON THE PLANET TO FIGHT THE NEXT BIG CONFLICT( WAR) OVER ARE CANADA N RUSSIA DUE TO THE OVERWHELMING ABUNDANCE OF NATURAL RESOURCES N BANKRUPTING ECONOMICS OF A MODERN BATTLEFIELD FOR PROTRACTED LENGTHS OF TIME. WITH OUT AIR SUPERIORITY WE AS A COUNTRY ARE DOOMED TO BE SUBJUGATED TO SERVITUDE.


I HAVE A STRONG MESSAGE TO THE IDIOTS N BLOCKING PROCURMENT PROGRAMS IN OTTAWA UNLESS YOU DRIVE A 1980 PINTO VEGA OR SIMILAR VINTAGE AUTO TO WORK EVERY DAY WHY THE F...K DO YOU EXPECT OUR ARMED FORCES TO PULL 7+G'S DOING 1.8 MACH TO DO THE SAME IN A 1980 FIGHTER JET . ASSHOLES.

[Rockie]

Our allies have been flying F-16s up north for decades now in the USAF and Norway with engines much less reliable than in the F-35. Those environments in Alaska are much worse than what they are in Cold Lake or Bagotville.

You left some big bits out frosti:

1. The US has flown F-16's in Alaska in a support role as aggressors, and they stay pretty close to home where there is excellent and abundant SAR capability. The only time they were used in air defence was for a short time after 9/11, and they never actually launched on a mission.

2. Norway's climate is not as harsh as Canada's and Norway has a much more capable SAR apparatus than we do. That's in addition to the capabilities of their closest neighbors Sweden and Finland, and all three of those countries have a combined land mass a little over 10% of Canada's.

3. Look on a map of Canada sometime and see how much land and airspace our country has north of Cold Lake and Bagotville. I'm sure you've seen it before and are aware that the F-35 will be operating up there in the harshest environment on earth without any SAR support. You probably just forgot to mention it....

[Big Pistons Forever]

Our allies have been flying F-16s up north for decades now in the USAF and Norway with engines much less reliable than in the F-35.

The reliability metrics for the F 16 are well known as is the reliability of the major F 35 competitor the F18E, a platform that has been in service for over 15 years.

Any metrics claiming to represent the in service reliability of the F 35 are entirely theoretical at this time. However even Lockheed has conceded that the direct operating costs of the F 35 will be at least 25 % higher than the F 16

[frosti]

Do you really think our fighter assets work out of YOD or YBG when they hold CADS alert status.
Hint - look up Comox, Inuvik, and Iqaluit.

I'm well aware of our current FOLs.

Source? We can hold our own in the North.

You obviously haven't been around a fighter squadron in a while. Strictly from a an air defence role, we don't have anything that can stop a determined enemy from taking over our airspace. This is without US help, just on our own. This government and the previous ones have severely neglected their support for this role. Old pieces of junk that are always broken - can't get parts for, a horrid attrition rate at the base that no one is addressing or seems to care about and a senior leadership that doesn't even know WTF is going on with their own squadrons. It's a fucking disgrace. I really fear for our pilots that have to fly and put their lives in those things.

You left some big bits out frosti:

You shouldn't dismiss the F35 (or anything single-engine) for northern ops, just due to our lack of SAR capability. We already rely mainly on the US for SAR anyway so why should this change. Plus i'm sure there will be some sort of survival pod available for the 35's like we use with the 18's.

the major F 35 competitor the F18E,

The F18E or whatever versions are not competitors, they are alternatives. Horrible ones at that. Service reliability for the F35 is slowly coming together as testing progresses. We will know full well what kind of maintenance hog it will be once they start arriving at our bases. Anything is better than a Navy jet designed for aircraft carriers that don't like flying in the cold.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The F18E or whatever versions are not competitors, they are alternatives. Horrible ones at that. Service reliability for the F35 is slowly coming together as testing progresses. We will know full well what kind of maintenance hog it will be once they start arriving at our bases. Anything is better than a Navy jet designed for aircraft carriers that don't like flying in the cold.

That is pretty rich considering that right now the F 35 is prohibited from flying when it is raining.

[Tom H]

Well frosti

This government and the previous ones have severely neglected their support for this role. Old pieces of junk that are always broken - can't get parts for, a horrid attrition rate at the base that no one is addressing or seems to care about and a senior leadership that doesn't even know WTF is going on with their own squadrons. It's a fucking disgrace. I really fear for our pilots that have to fly and put their lives in those things.

That is the first thing we have agreed on.

We already rely mainly on the US for SAR anyway so why should this change.

Gee...because we are a sovereign country is the first reason that comes to mind quickly followed by the demonstrated need for improved SAR performance across the North and both coasts for that matter.

In my highly biased personal opinion

[Rockie]

You shouldn't dismiss the F35 (or anything single-engine) for northern ops, just due to our lack of SAR capability.

It's not just due to our lack of SAR capability. It's our lack of SAR capability combined with the vastness of northern Canada, great distances between habitation and extremely harsh environment.

While the survival pod may be the greatest thing since sliced bread should one have to jettison the airplane due to an engine failure, not jettisoning the airplane thanks to another engine is a hugely better option.

[frosti]

Gee...because we are a sovereign country is the first reason that comes to mind quickly followed by the demonstrated need for improved SAR performance across the North and both coasts for that matter.

Both coasts yes, the north, no. For the insignificant amount of time jets actually fly around up there, a permanent SAR base anywhere north of Yellowknife is a waste of money. IMO, if jets do deploy up there for any significant amount of time then SAR back up should follow.

[frosti]

The real prices are coming out....

http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/national/ ... 6851684344

Tony Abbott to approve Australia’s biggest ever military purchase of stealth fighter jets

The planes will cost about $90 million each when they roll off the assembly line between 2018 and 2020 and the overall project will cost some $14 billion during the 30-year life of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

So, again, our cost estimates were completely blown out of proportion and calculated incorrectly. $40b estimate for 65 jets was a joke.

[Rockie]

The GAO details the unit costs from inception in 2001 which have risen every year and stood at $137 million one year ago.

That's another 50% more than the aussie newspaper reported, and I'm guessing the GAO has a better handle on the cost than a newspaper at the bottom of the world.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652948.pdf

[YYZSaabGuy]

So, again, our cost estimates were completely blown out of proportion and calculated incorrectly. $40b estimate for 65 jets was a joke.

Really? DND's own 20-year cost estimate in June 2010 was $25.1 Billion, vs. the Australian 30 year estimate of $14.1 Billion, so who's zooming whom? (Hint: no, it's not an FX difference).

And the $40 Billion estimate, as you know, was a full life-cycle cost including fuel, people, replacements/spares, upgrades, and other operating costs over a 36-year useful life. In other words, the all-in cost of owning and operating F-35s. We've been operating CF-18s since 1982 - 34 years now, and we'll probably be operating them for another 3-5 years minimum until we can figure out a replacement. So looking at F-35 costs over 36 years is pretty realistic.

I'm not clear why you find all this so objectionable.

[frosti]

In other words, the all-in cost of owning and operating F-35s.

No, they were ridiculous calculations and made up inflated numbers designed to scare the public. Only in Canada do we use the weight of an aircraft to predict 40 year life-cycle costs. And only Canadians are ignorant enough to believe them.

[YYZSaabGuy]

No, they were ridiculous calculations and made up inflated numbers designed to scare the public. Only in Canada do we use the weight of an aircraft to predict 40 year life-cycle costs. And only Canadians are ignorant enough to believe them.

Can't argue the facts, so you start slinging mud about motivations and about the intelligence of the people who paid for the report...good one!

DND by the way has accepted this approach and has agreed to provide both estimates and actual costs on a full life-cycle basis (see http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/engli ... .html#hd3f. Maybe you should go tell the CDS his approach is ridiculous?

[Caracrane]

Buy Rafale, plus they want to assemble it here in Canada. F-35 is a piece of crap that nobody wants and the 22 is not for sale.