The proof is in the pudding; we won't know how effective (or inadequate) the '35 will be until it faces serious combat.
Nonetheless, past and current teething troubles augur badly for this costly hunk of metal. It's too late now, but I wish my own country, the USA, had ditched the monstrosity long ago. Either start from scratch again or upgrade existing air-frames. But get rid of this piece of do-do!
So a jet that is not appropriate for Arctic operations in a largely Arctic country makes sense? A jet that can't carry guns until 2019? A jet that is insanely over budget and riddled with problems? C'mon. Let's be realistic about this. Whether we look at Super Hornets, Eurofighters, or something entirely different, the F-35 is NOT the be all, end all. We also don't need a first strike fighter. That's not our military mandate.
I have seen some damning reports on this aircraft and from so many insiders I have spoken to, and few speak kindly of the F-35. Many of the technology hurdles expected to be in place by now have not been solved. The more I read and hear, the more I have to believe this going to be a turkey of an aircraft.
One of the reasons Canada decided to go with the F-35 was the supposed reliability of the engines and they have NOT reached the tolerance levels projected. If I am flying as a pilot over artic areas, I want a reliable engine or multiple engines to get me home if one fails. If you really want whats best for the military, Canada should consider going to new F-18's or considering other manufacturers. The F-35 is a lemon.
61 issue and counting in the engine alone and engineers have admitted they have not gotten to solve the core issues yet. The GAO has already noted " the GAO predicted that, given the complexities of the program, the literature of criticism is only going to grow. “With more complex and demanding testing ahead and engine reliability improvements needed, it is almost certain that the program will encounter more discoveries,” April 2015.
Personally, I plan to wait for Fortunate Son to tell me what to think.
For all its troubles is has to be one of the most miss-understood aircraft on the planet.
And those who think the Tiffie is the panacea ignore the protracted development of the aircraft that was both over budget (by a long way) and late. There is a reason why the RAF still operates the Tonka. The RAF Tiffie is still developing its air to ground capabilities. The Tonka is now projected to last till 2019 I think.
In saying all of that I am unsure the F35 is the best choice for the RCAF??
The RAAF has it right. The RAAF is force generating a networked air dominance battle operating system. With Wedgtail, KC30, F18Gs, TRITON, stand off wpns and a plethora of other enablers/wpns which enables the F35 to be the best choice for the RAAF.
I don't think the RCAF is force generating such enabling capabilities?
Frankly, the sensor and awareness platform could be imported into any new design, even drone platforms at this point. Israel is now handling the pilot helmet integration and I think they can handle such very well. But the issues of handling, weapon capabilities and overall reliability are questionable at best assuming the technical problem now glitching the program can be overcome. That's a VERY long list.
For a nation to put all their eggs in the F-35 program basket, I would think is foolish, especially those that operate in the extreme of the envelopes of environments.
Frankly, the sensor and awareness platform could be imported into any new design, even drone platforms at this point. Israel is now handling the pilot helmet integration and I think they can handle such very well. But the issues of handling, weapon capabilities and overall reliability are questionable at best assuming the technical problem now glitching the program can be overcome. That's a VERY long list.
For a nation to put all their eggs in the F-35 program basket, I would think is foolish, especially those that operate in the extreme of the envelopes of environments.
I am not quite sure what you mean in your first bit?? Clearly my post articulated the F35 cannot stand alone. And there is a bunch of ISR, C2 and enabling systems to allow the F35 to fight and thrive in contested airspace.
By the way Israel is also buying the F35. So is South Korea and Japan. Notwithstanding the European countries who may/may not buy the platform, surely the Chief of Staffs in each countries mentioned, with all their policy makers, have not got it wrong. Bearing mind the above countries all have very good reasons why the need a decent platform. I should also note the above countries are also developing a networked air dominance battle operating system with plenty of platform enablers.
By the way Israel is also buying the F35...I should also note the above countries are also developing a networked air dominance battle operating system with plenty of platform enablers.
Yes, Israel is buying the F-35, however they are making some significant changes in the avionics departement (classified ofc, but I think we all can imagine what they have in store is top notch technology), and they are working on implementation of their own weaponry. And for the networking part, the IDF already has (probably) the most sophisticated battlefield system in the world as of now, allowing even individual soldier to call for artillery, air, or missile support from anywhere in the battlefield using only a tablet computer. It is also able to display the battlefield situation, intel, positions of allied troop, control UAVs etc. The best feature in my eyes however is the ability to take control of guided missile fired from allied airplane or ship and guide it where necessary. In this enviroment, i believe the F-35 can be really good. In Canadian forces, not so much. Not that they are too behind, but I doubt they have anything like this in place. Also, in the Arctic, i believe a twin engine aircraft is a much much better choice. For safety reasons of course.
That first part is the battle field awareness that is the strength of the F-35 with it's sensor and network systems. The other factors of stealth, agility and reliability suck on this aircraft.
Israel is awesome with integrating new electronic systems into their aircraft and really getting the most out of an air frame, which is why they have been asked to handle the helmet targeting system for the F-35 late in the program.
The reason for the Navy and other nations such as Canada to in the past ask for twin engine aircraft is the issue of having a backup in case of an engine failure. The F-35 was "suppose" to be reliable enough to break that previous requirement. But... http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...18e_story.html
The other contenders to replace Canada’s fleet of CF-18 fighter jets are the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Dassault Rafale and Boeing’s Super Hornet.
Kendall said Tuesday he is hopeful Canada will decide to move forward with the planned buy, which is estimated at CAN $44.8 billion (US$33.8 billion). More than likely, this really won't be decided until after the Oct 19th elections.
Beyond the issues noted above:
The decision has been the subject of heated debate over the past few weeks, with Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau recently vowing to scrap the multibillion dollar F-35 purchase if he is elected.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper shot down this proposal Monday, saying it would “crater” Canada’s aerospace sector. The Tory leader, who is seeking his fourth mandate, pointed to hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts awarded to the country’s aerospace industry since 1997 to help develop the F-35, adding that these suppliers stand to lose billions more.
"The Liberal Party is living in a dream world if they think we could pull out of the development of the F-35 and not lose business," Harper said.
But questions about the incumbent government’s commitment to the F-35 program remain. The Conservative Party, which has been in power for the last nine years and had originally committed Canada to purchase the F-35, has not yet outlined how the acquisition will proceed. In December 2012, the Conservative government announced it would put the program on hold after facing questions over its skyrocketing cost. That acquisition process has yet to restart.
We're investing $16 billion to protect 35 million people with a first-strike jet that is unsuitable to arctic conditions. We're already on the hook for $500 each for a plane that I don't believe fulfills our peace keeping mandate role.
to protect 35 million people with a first-strike jet that is unsuitable to arctic conditions.
First Strike? Go back to the CF-18 enforcement of the Libyan No Fly Zone in 2011, or the Kosovo Crisis in 1998, or the First Gulf War in 1991. Canadian Pilots put their lives on the line by attacking ground Targets in all three Wars. Stealth gives them the best chance of completing these missions and surviving!
BTW, None of these were Peace Keeping Missions.
Unsuitable for Arctic conditions?
Last time I checked Charles Lindbergh managed to cross the North Atlantic with a single engine aircraft back in 1927.
Engine technology and reliability have come a long way since G.E. developed the F/A-18's F404s some 45 years ago. Look at commercial airliners. Used to be you couldn't cross the Atlantic unless you had four engines. Later Tri jets (DC-10, L1011) were allowed. Now twin engined commercial airliners are the norm on all trans oceanic routes. The ETOPS B777 that I fly for 15 and a half hours to Sydney from Vancouver is allowed to be be well over three hours single engine flying time (a number that has grown from 60 minutes to 120 minutes to 180 minutes and now 207 minutes!) from a suitable alternate in the highly unlikely event that an engine fails. The single engine F-35 will do just fine in the Arctic.
Without Stealth, anything else is obsolete and would be a true waste of money.
The engine alone is a major issue, not to mention the weapon systems and basic poor flight capabilities. From The Washington Post:
Engine maker defends F-35 as investigators find even more problems
By Christian Davenport April 27
The government watchdog reports issued this month on the $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter join a long list of critical reviews that have picked apart the program’s ballooning cost, schedule delays, problems with software and even the helmet.
Now the Government Accountability Office and the Pentagon’s internal investigator have taken aim at the engine of the most expensive weapons system in the history of the Pentagon.
In a report issued earlier this month, the GAO, using unusually strong language, said that the “reliability of the engine is very poor” and that “the program has a long way to go to achieve” reliability goals.
Then, in a report released Monday, the Pentagon’s internal investigators said there were 61 violations in how the engine program is being managed — dinging Pratt & Whitney, the engine manufacturer, for a variety of missteps, including workers not always wearing protective gloves and masks when working around dangerous materials and assembly areas not cleared of foreign objects that could cause damage to the engines.
It is not the first time the watchdogs have found flaws in the program — the GAO lists 40 related reports that date back a decade on the F-35. And it is certainly not the last time the controversial fighter jet will face scrutiny and criticism.
But now the Pentagon and the companies involved in the program are pushing back.
Pratt & Whitney scheduled a news conference that came about an hour after the Pentagon inspector general’s report was released, to defend the program and offer context it says the investigators missed. Bennett Croswell, president of military engines for Pratt, was quick to point out that the report was an audit of the company’s management systems and adherence to the contract.
The report “does not speak to the quality of our products, which we believe are world-class,” he said. “The engine is reliable.”
The Pentagon office that oversees the F-35 disagreed with three of the inspector general’s six findings. It said that the recommendations for corrections “are unnecessary, and, if implemented, would add cost and schedule growth to the program for items that are already well understood and carefully managed.”
The aggressive stance follows a forceful defense of the program last month by Air Force Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, who said that costs are coming down, key milestones are being met and many of the issues that drove up the program’s cost have been remedied.
It is a critical time for the F-35, which is built by Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin and is often derided by critics as the “jet that ate the Pentagon.” A July 1 deadline is looming for the Marine Corps version of the plane to reach what is called “initial operational capability,” when it would be declared ready for combat.
Pentagon officials concede that the program was way over budget and years behind schedule. But in recent years, under new leadership, it has gotten back on track, they say.
Still, in its report, the GAO found that “improving engine reliability will likely require additional design changes and retrofits” that could require even more money and time.
To rebut that, Croswell came to the news conference armed with charts and data on the engine’s performance, and pointed out that the F-35 recently performed very well, taking off and landing on a carrier last fall. The company plans for the engine to last as much as 50 percent longer than required.
Asked if he was surprised by the GAO’s conclusion that the engine was unreliable, he said, “Yes, very much so.”
The entire fleet of F-35s was grounded last summer after an engine fire during a training mission at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida as a pilot was beginning to take off. The root cause of the problem has been discovered and fixed, officials said. And problems in a development program are to be expected, they said.
But as the GAO noted, the fact that the aircraft is in development at the same time it is being manufactured has caused problems, which critics have long said was a violation of the acquisition tenet “Fly before you buy.”
Another problem is that the F-35 is going to have to compete “with other large programs for limited acquisition resources,” putting pressure on the budget at a time when defense spending is being trimmed.
And the GAO predicted that, given the complexities of the program, the literature of criticism is only going to grow.
“With more complex and demanding testing ahead and engine reliability improvements needed, it is almost certain that the program will encounter more discoveries,” the report said."
Christian Davenport covers federal contracting for The Post's Financial desk. He joined The Post in 2000 and has served as an editor on the Metro desk and as a reporter covering military affairs. He is the author of "As You Were: To War and Back with the Black Hawk Battalion of the Virginia National Guard."
As far as the stealth, the only missile weapons available until 2022 are the pylon mounted systems which destroy the stealth capability as well greatly diminish the flight operation envelope of the F-35.
Much of the current equipment Canada has for the CF-18 could be used for the Super Hornet and save Canada a huge expense otherwise and lets face it. Given the extraordinarily high amount of issues the F-35 IS having, you know the cost to get it operational is going to skyrocket. I think the super hornet blows away this dogged program and in the long term would benefit best those who have to use it in combat as well protect the interest of Canada the best. To further note, there is no absolute that this system is going to work. At best there is a risk and can Canada afford to risk their entire aviation program on such? This is a decision that has irreversible long term consequences if the program is a failure and Canada has the ability to choose a proven aircraft frame. Something to give serious thought to.
FARNBOROUGH, England -- The Navy recently conducted several ground and airborne tests of stealth-enhancing upgrades to the F/A-18 Super Hornet in an effort to improve the fighter aircraft's ability to elude radar detection, service leaders said.
"The point of putting on a conformal fuel tank and the point of the external weapons pod would be to carry fuel and weapons in a way so as not to increase the signature of the airplane," said Capt. Frank Morley, F/A-18 and EA-18G program manager.
Working in tandem with F-18-maker Boeing, the Navy conducted a series of ground assessments and flight test to see how these modifications improved the stealth-like characteristics of the aircraft. The tests occurred as the F-35 continues to face problems with the recent grounding and Boeing officials lobby the Navy to buy more F/A-18s as a backstop for F-35 problems.
Supporters of the F-35 often counter Boeing's lobbying efforts saying the F/A-18's lack of stealth would make it useless in a war against an enemy like Russia, China, or Syria that bolster advanced air defense systems.
Morley said the ground and air assessments successfully demonstrated that the change to the aircraft resulted in a reduced radar signature. He indicated that some specifics regarding the assessments of low-signature technology were not publicly available.
"We were pleased with the results," he added.
The conformal fuel tanks are aerodynamically designed to help the F/A-18 have a lower detectability or signature. Boeing officials have said the conformal fuel tanks reduce the signature of the aircraft by over 50 percent.
Aerodynamically configured conformal fuel tanks are engineered to carry up to 3,500 pounds of fuel, Boeing officials said. In addition to helping to reduce the signature, the conformal fuel tank and external weapons pod are engineered to help make the aircraft able to fly further with more weapons without increasing signature or drag for the airplane, Navy officials said.
The external weapons pod -- as opposed to using pylons to carry the weapons -- could lead to greater use of air-to-air missiles as well as air-to-ground bombs. The enclosed, external aerodynamically engineered weapons pod is built to carry up to 2,500-pounds of weapons.
The Super Hornet is configured to fire the AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile, the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM, the Joint Standoff Weapon, the Small Diameter Bomb and the Mk-84 general purpose bomb, among others.
These upgrades are needed because F/A-18 aircraft are expected to serve well into the 2030's, Morley added.
So far, the Navy, Boeing and its partners have built and delivered more than 487 F/A-18E/F on their way to a program goal of 563 aircraft, Navy officials said.
The current Block II configuration of the F/A-18 Super Hornet, which first deployed in 2008, was engineered with a host of signature-reducing and endurance enhancing modifications compared to prior models of the aircraft.
Some of the enhancements include the use of Active Electronically Scanned Array, or AESA, radar, "jamming" decoys and an integrated electronic countermeasures system. The countermeasures system consists of three main components; they include and on-board jammer, visually cued radar warning receiver and a decoy, according to Navy officials.
Yeah, and so it goes. It is what it is, but I think that the USN, USAF, IAF, JASDF, RSAF, ROKAF, RAAF etc etc feel they are onto something with the F35.
Also the idea that an engine cannot have any development problems, particularly one that is as complex as the PW135 ignores plenty of history. Actually plenty of aircraft development history is ignored when discussing the F35. Some conveniently forget the F14 (TF30) had a underpowered and unreliable engine for half its life, which I might add killed some its pilots.
And whilst there is plenty of insider gossip,...apparently. I'll start taking notice when someone puts his name to the claim and I understand that he/she was something other than the janitor or a software programmer (software being one of the biggest issues with the protracted development of the F35).
This does not detract from the enormous cost and delay the aircraft has incurred. Its clear, Lockheed completely underestimated the work required on the aircraft, particularly the software coding. The fact it had to be dragged kicking and screaming to admit as much did the manufacturer no favours.
But as I pointed out in my very first post in this thread I don't think the F35 is the right fit for the RCAF, although for different reasons than above articulated by others.
So when I ask for an alternative, I mean for USN, USAF, IAF, JASDF, RSAF, ROKAF, RAAF?? Because it seems to me, there are some pretty smart people in those countries and some of them have gone to some extraordinary lengths to secure the type.
If someone says the Typhoon, fine and dandy, no problem but allow me to demonstrate its enormous cost overruns and its tardiness in development and finally multi-mission capability.
Last edited by PBRStreetgang; 09-24-2015 at 05:33 PM.
That first part is the battle field awareness that is the strength of the F-35 with it's sensor and network systems. The other factors of stealth, agility and reliability suck on this aircraft.
Israel is awesome with integrating new electronic systems into their aircraft and really getting the most out of an air frame, which is why they have been asked to handle the helmet targeting system for the F-35 late in the program.
I have read that one of the upcoming modifications for the F-18E/F is to incorporate enclosed weapons pods, conformal fuel tanks a la late model F-16 as well as modifications to the sensors and such. While the F-35 may develop into an exceptional warplane it is probably far more than what Canada requires. With the stated need of 65 aircraft, we are far from a front line fighter force, but we can provide secondary capability with the F-18 series aircraft. Our current facilities would require very little modifications to support the E/F whereas with the F-35 that would not be the case. My understanding is that Canada has been looking at the F-35A version which means that we would need new air to air tankers as well.
Not to mention the operational cost differences - from what I have read is that the projected cost of flying the F-35 will be double the F-18E/F and with our very limited defense budget this will not be good.
There are more reasons than this but it basically sums up my position is that the F-35 will not meet our needs and the F-18E/F is far more practical for our military.
Tell that to the Chinese and Russians who have their own Stealth fighter programs.
Even the Norwegians are buying 50+ F-35s.
Dan
Agree, stealth is not a necessarily a "first strike capability" characteristic. In Gulf War 1 it was, but now its more about enduring survivability and lethality in contemporary conflict.
Time to start looking at the next war.
A war in the information age. ISR coverage, acquisition, identification, prioritising (identification CoG and CV) sharing and awareness (networking) and finally targeting. Its the electronic version of the OODA loop.
The F35 is designed to fight that war. Its part of a BOS that USN and RAAF have Force Generated. The F35 is just but one element of the air defence BOS. One part only. Its an integrated, networked BOS that the F35, more than any other aircraft, is designed to be the final deliverer of kinetic effects, in a contested environment.
It acknowledges, in todays operating environment, that integration of information and the ability to sort through that information to enable the delivery of kinetic effects, utilising a manouverist and survivable (both of which are Battle Operating Systems) approaches is paramount and to be frank, the only way to survive in a contested environment.
The F35, is in fact the product of contemporary doctrine, doctrine, I might add, was developed from the lessons learn't from Iraq and other conflicts of the 90s and early 2000s, where the vast majority of air to air engagements were BVR and not gutter fighting by holding onto the opponents belt buckle.
The F35 is the first fighter specifically developed for contemporary Western doctrine, its as simple as that.
So if the F35 is a lemon, then I'd be looking at contemporary doctrine and not the aircraft.
I have read that one of the upcoming modifications for the F-18E/F is to incorporate enclosed weapons pods, conformal fuel tanks a la late model F-16 as well as modifications to the sensors and such. While the F-35 may develop into an exceptional warplane it is probably far more than what Canada requires. With the stated need of 65 aircraft, we are far from a front line fighter force, but we can provide secondary capability with the F-18 series aircraft. Our current facilities would require very little modifications to support the E/F whereas with the F-35 that would not be the case. My understanding is that Canada has been looking at the F-35A version which means that we would need new air to air tankers as well.
Not to mention the operational cost differences - from what I have read is that the projected cost of flying the F-35 will be double the F-18E/F and with our very limited defense budget this will not be good.
There are more reasons than this but it basically sums up my position is that the F-35 will not meet our needs and the F-18E/F is far more practical for our military.
I have to say, out of all the posts stating the F35 is not the best aircraft for the RCAF, the above is the best.
It also acknowledges the cost of enablers and it also acknowledges the mission parameters that the Canadian Government may/may not actually need for its new fighter. This is in addition to the cost.
I know Dan thinks the F35 is the way to go, and his reasoning is pretty sound, particularly, with the Russian belligerence over the Arctic.
So, in my view, one has to determine the capabilities to meet this potential threat. The "Most Dangerous Course of Action" if you like. If the F18F/G is the way to go, then so be it and fair enough.
Actually if the RCAF does go down the Super Bug route, then Growlers should be part of the force mix.
Last edited by PBRStreetgang; 09-24-2015 at 07:16 PM.
I have to say, out of all the posts stating the F35 is not the best aircraft for the RCAF, the above is the best.
It also acknowledges the cost of enablers and it also acknowledges the mission parameters that the Canadian Government may/may not actually need for its new fighter. This is in addition to the cost.
I know Dan thinks the F35 is the way to go, and his reasoning is pretty sound, particularly, with the Russian belligerence over the Arctic.
So, in my view, one has to determine the capabilities to meet this potential threat. The "Most Dangerous Course of Action" if you like. If the F18F/G is the way to go, then so be it and fair enough.
Actually if the RCAF does go down the Super Bug route, then Growlers should be part of the force mix.
The Canadians have time too, the factory is not due to close till 2017. So this will allow time for the upgrades etc etc to mature. So the Canadians are in the box seat for the Super Bug. The Yanks just cannot stand to see a factory shut down production, particularly BOEING, so you may get them for a good price too.
Yes, Israel is buying the F-35, however they are making some significant changes in the avionics departement (classified ofc, but I think we all can imagine what they have in store is top notch technology), and they are working on implementation of their own weaponry. And for the networking part, the IDF already has (probably) the most sophisticated battlefield system in the world as of now, allowing even individual soldier to call for artillery, air, or missile support from anywhere in the battlefield using only a tablet computer. It is also able to display the battlefield situation, intel, positions of allied troop, control UAVs etc. The best feature in my eyes however is the ability to take control of guided missile fired from allied airplane or ship and guide it where necessary. In this enviroment, i believe the F-35 can be really good. In Canadian forces, not so much. Not that they are too behind, but I doubt they have anything like this in place. Also, in the Arctic, i believe a twin engine aircraft is a much much better choice. For safety reasons of course.
I am more than aware of the Battle Management System you have alluded too.
I think the electronic and wpn systems you are alluding too, with the F35 are still to be sorted with Lockheed and the US Government. Its been a bit of a sticky issue, although I would imagine the Israeli's will finally get their way.
By Richard Shimooka in today's National Post Newspaper.
Over the past week, Canadians have been bombarded by claims about the cost and suitability of the F-35 aircraft and its various competitors. If the public is to make a decision, they deserve accurate, factual information to base it on. Many have touted the Boeing F/A-18E Super Hornet as the lowest-cost alternative to the F-35. However, to this date, there has not been an accurate comparison of the costs and capabilities published.
To start, it is important to understand that, much like an onion’s layers, there are different levels of cost. The most straightforward is the “flyaway” cost, which only includes the airframe, engine and avionics. This generally accounts for 75 per cent of the acquisition expenditure. The commonly cited $65 million price for the Super Hornet refers to its flyaway cost in 2012 U.S. dollars. This is a misleading comparison with the F-35’s flyaway and requires unpacking.
First, it is important to note that all fiscal figures are in 2012 U.S. Dollars, to eliminate inflation and exchange-rate variances. The last reliable cost data for the F/A-18E is from 2013, as the U.S. has only procured the electronic warfare variant (EA-18G) since then. Congressional reporting stated each aircraft’s cost as $62 million, but this has increased since. Boeing has cut the Super Hornet’s production rate from three aircraft to two, and it is currently slated to cease production in 2017. Consequently, its flyaway cost could be as high as $72 million.
Moreover, the Super Hornet’s flyaway price does not include several essential elements, such as sensor pods and external fuel tanks. These are all considered basic equipment for even our current CF-18s and the average cost for a set is $6.9 million. Finally, Canada would incur a $6.1 million Foreign Military Sales (FMS) charge on each aircraft. Added together, the Super Hornet’s true cost is between $75 million and $85 million.
The F-35’s flyaway cost is estimated to be approximately $77 million for an aircraft delivered in or after 2020 (the price for the bulk of Canada’s purchases), not $175 million as claimed. There is high confidence in these figures. The Join Strike Fighter (JSF) program has met its acquisition cost targets for the past five years, according to U.S. Congress documentation. This is partly due to large economies of scale. In the next three years, as many F-35s will be produced as all of its competitors combined; or one aircraft every four days in 2018.
The F-35 is also not subject to the same secondary costs as the Super Hornet. It carries all of its sensors and fuel internally and does not require external pods. Finally, as a JSF Partner Nation, Canada is not subject to FMS fees. Thus a true apples-to-apples comparison sees the F-35 at around $77 million and the Super Hornet at $75 million to $85 million. Other alternatives have been cited for even higher costs. Accordingly, no significant acquisition savings can be found by selecting another aircraft.
The life-cycle accounting and operational considerations tells a similar story. The largest cost driver for operations is personnel salaries and fuel costs, which are roughly equivalent for the various competitors. The United States military believes that any cost variance with the F-35 will be offset by lower sortie requirements to maintain readiness and conduct operations, due to new simulator technologies and advanced capabilities. This efficiency can be understood in a comparison with the Super Hornet.
Last year, a U.S. government report stated: “there are current, more stressing threat environments in which the (Super Hornet) remains not operationally effective.” CF-18 pilots participating in Operation Reassurance were exposed to those very threats while supporting NATO allies from Russian aggression. In order to remain viable, the F/A-18E must operate in conjunction with an EA-18G to suppress any threats. This requires the purchase and operation of a second, more costly version of the Super Hornet, where a single F-35 may have sufficed.
This also illustrates the serious long-term risk involved with selecting a more limited aircraft. The CF-18 has been among the most active and popular military instrument in the past 25 years, with operations in the Gulf War, Balkans, Kosovo, Libya, Eastern Europe and Iraq. Thus, limiting the replacements’ capability would mark a radical reorientation of Canada’s foreign policy for the next 30 years and constrain a future leader’s options, perhaps at a time of national crisis.
Finally, a competition would be a costly and largely pointless process. Based on previous experiences and the complexity of fighter capabilities, a proper competition will require 200 or more staff members working for at least three years. Their salaries alone would cost Canada at least $70 million, with the outcome likely to be the reselection of the F-35. Nor will a competition result in a “better deal”: U.S. law prevents American manufacturers from selling such equipment for lower than what the U.S. government pays.
After analyzing the available information detailed above, it is clear that cancelling the F-35 procurement will not result in tens of billions of dollars saved, nor serve any of Canada’s longstanding interests. The men and women who will operate Canada’s future fighter deserve better.
National Post
Richard Shimooka is a research fellow in the defence management studies program at Queen’s University and at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute.
Just to point out - The National Post is a right-leaning news organization.
damn! can't anyone stand straight these days???
anyway, for those who has ever watched independence day, there's a poignant sociological point in that movie... we are only united when faced with an external threat. we bicker among ourselves as a nation in peace... but when war is upon the nation, we put aside our differences to stand united.
ok ok... enough of ranting. i just hate the f35 coz of its looks. period. but then again, when i saw the competition, boy was i relieved...
damn! can't anyone one stand straight these days???
anyway, for those who has ever watched independence day, there's a poignant sociological point in that movie... we are only united when faced with an external threat. we bicker among ourselves as a nation in peace... but when war is upon the nation, we put aside our differences to stand united.
ok ok... enough of ranting. i just hate the f35 coz of its looks. period. but then again, when i saw the competition, boy was i relief...
Also to note the Stealth features on the F-35 have already become an issue as it can be picked up on the new Eitam G550 radar craft Israel is using with the S and L band radar systems. It would appear that the issue of stealth may already be being defeated by new systems.
No fan of the F-35 myself, I'd invest in Super Hornets now and in 15 or so years switch to UAV's. The best way to give your pilots the best survival rate is to take them out of the aircraft altogether.
It would appear that the issue of stealth may already be being defeated by new systems.
And therein lies the rub. Subtract the aircraft's vaunted stealth features, and what other advantage is left? Also, it is stealthy when carrying a puny internal load only; add a useful amount of ordnance externally and stealth goes bye-bye (and performance suffers too). Perhaps very fast & very high may once again be looked at? Sure it'll take awhile for stealth to be negated as an effective feature, but it will happen, just a matter of time. For every counter-measure there will be a counter-counter-measure, and so it goes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard from Rotterdam
No fan of the F-35 myself, I'd invest in Super Hornets now and in 15 or so years switch to UAV's. The best way to give your pilots the best survival rate is to take them out of the aircraft altogether.
This seems to be a most sensible option. With rapid technological advances occurring over shorter timescales, one needs to ask how prudent is it to invest in such an expensive programme over decades. Much more effective drones may emerge at a fraction of the cost to purchase & operate. On a kinder note, anyone planning to watch the Supermoon Eclipse on Sunday?
__________________
Brian
Last edited by Sgt Caribou; 09-25-2015 at 03:21 PM.
Reason: rambling
Also to note the Stealth features on the F-35 have already become an issue as it can be picked up on the new Eitam G550 radar craft Israel is using with the S and L band radar systems. It would appear that the issue of stealth may already be being defeated by new systems.
Fascinating articles and very straight to point in regards to Canada and the F-35. It reinforces my view that Canada should pursue the F-18E/F instead of the F-35. Lower operating costs, lower logistical costs, maintain current force enablers, common spares support with USN and RAAF etc.
Also to note the Stealth features on the F-35 have already become an issue as it can be picked up on the new Eitam G550 radar craft Israel is using with the S and L band radar systems. It would appear that the issue of stealth may already be being defeated by new systems.
The first article makes sense.
Although the suggested 126 Billion over the lifetime of the aircraft is just made up crap. Also it suggests that Australia have yet to make up its mind. This article was written last year, where 14 had already been ordered and the remainder of the purchase was all but officially announced.
The second article is 15 years old and in my view irrelevant, other than to demonstrate the differences in approach between the West and the Russians.
As for Stealth, this has been acknowledged since time immemorial that radar would catch up to detect current types. They learn, we learn. Its no different from the age of 50 and 60s where aircraft had to transit low level to reach its target, then came "look down shoot down" blah blah. You overcome and adapt, modify improve etc etc etc. Its the nature of warfare.
Also, its one country, with one system. If and when others create the system some smart cookie will think of something else. High end radars such as the S and L band radars alluded above, are not the norm. It wont operate in every operating environment and never will.
But I'll say this again. Although it beggars belief that this simple concept cannot be accepted. The F35 is a part of a BOS. Its part of a overall networked system of air defence and air dominance in a contested environment. Blah blah blah. So yes, S and L band radars will have to be dealt with. Utilising whatever asset is appropriate. Just like the last lot of radars that had to be dealt with which did last time and no doubt they like they will tomorrow.
People are carrying on about the F35 with unrealistic and to be frank unfounded assumptions. A cursery, yes sirre, a cursery look at many of the buyers of the F35 and their current and near term force structure could give you an understanding of what the F35 is and what it is part of.
USN, USAF, JASDF, RAAF IAF, would do for a start.
Last edited by PBRStreetgang; 09-25-2015 at 05:06 PM.
Fascinating articles and very straight to point in regards to Canada and the F-35. It reinforces my view that Canada should pursue the F-18E/F instead of the F-35. Lower operating costs, lower logistical costs, maintain current force enablers, common spares support with USN and RAAF etc.
Not that I am advocating the F35 for Canada, but you probably find the F35 has the edge over the Super-bug in this regard. More will be built with a larger logistic base over a longer period. Through-life logistics will be to the advantage of the F35 operator over the medium to long term.
When you mean enablers, what you actually mean is when Canadian Fighters and other NATO fighter deploy as part of a NATO force, its the USAF that will pick up much of the enabling tab. C2, ISR tankers etc etc. Its happened in every conflict that NATO has participated in.
Very few countries can do it on its own. In my view, the all of NATO can barely perform those functions on its own.
Last edited by PBRStreetgang; 09-25-2015 at 05:33 PM.
O Canada.
Your Privacy Choices
