Production F-35s start rolling off the line

[Guest Derek L]

It makes sense to buy aircraft that can do what we need them to do. As far as I can tell, that's the A330 MRTT. They're simply bigger, more capable versions of what we have, and they can deliver fuel using both methods. The H models of the Herc will be kept for SAR for now, and will be kept as long as possible going forward. IT may be that we buy new tankers ahead of schedule though. There isn't really anything stopping us, as it won't cost all that much.

Sure, the A330 is bigger, but with that, you’ll also be restricted to larger runways (One of the reasons it lost in the USAF bid). And, as I said, we won’t have any aircraft that require the hose & drogue.

[Remiel]

Hmmm...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-may-scrap-f35-set-to-be-israel-s-fighter-jet-of-the-future-1.363626

[Guest Derek L]

Hmmm...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-may-scrap-f35-set-to-be-israel-s-fighter-jet-of-the-future-1.363626

This is just political posturing by McCain & Levin (He did the same over the Tanker deal), but unlike the AAR deal, there is no other (realistic) alternative(s) to the Joint Strike Fighter…..They’re not going to design a whole new aircraft. They could continue building 4/4.5 generation aircraft (Like the F-18 or F-15), but these will not meet the stated requirements of the USAF, USN or USMC.

The JSF, in all versions, in the end will be built. The F-35A & F-35C are currently meeting (in some cases exceeding) testing criteria and (for the most part) are on schedule. Even the troubled “B” version, that was put on probation, has already achieved the required terms of said probation, namely achieving ~100 vertical landings.

These kind of doom & gloom reports that are hanging around the neck of the JSF are nothing new, all major defense programs receive the same kind of negative attention, and in many cases are unwarranted criticism of the manufactures, when in fact most problems stem from politics and changing requirements. During the 90s, the Press never played-up the fact that the Superhornet came in under budget.

The cynic in me also questions some of the potential motives of the critics. Boeing lost the JSF competion to Lockheed, and now, would stand to gain with further orders of 4th generation aircraft that it builds (F-15 & F-18). I would also question perhaps some of the members ethics of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one must wondering how when Boeing lost the initial contract for the Tanker replacement to EADS/Northrop, some on the committee called it un-American, and allowed a “Do over” (Changed requirements) and Boeing won.

[Topaz]

The US is now saying that they may have to scrap the F-35 because its costs are out of control and Israel will have to think of another plan because they were going to buy the F35. No country can buy the plane for what it was told original not even Canada, the price is up to 103million per jet and climbing. Now, I guess its time Canada had an open bid? http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-may-scrap-f35-set-to-be-israel-s-fighter-jet-of-the-future-1.363626

[Tilter]

As our CC-130E models started being retired, the “newer” H models usage (and wear & tear) increased dramatically, added with the high demands placed on the fleet with operations in Afghanistan, the Hs are getting tired. Once the Jerk order is completed, the remaining Hs will likely go to the SAR guys until the FWSAR program is completed….we’ll hold onto them as long as possible, but the clock is ticking.

I’d be surprised if any are left once the F-35 enters squadron service.

As for the CC-150, like the 707s before them, we bought too little of them, and they have been extremely busy and will likely be in need of replacement in the early 2020s.

As for the A330, in my personal opinion, it would be cheaper to tack on (like the C-17 purchase) to a USAF order, numbering in the 100s, a handful of additional aircraft. Also, as I mentioned above, our own aircraft at that time will all be Boom capable (F-35 & C-17), Boom aircraft have a higher fuel transfer rate then drogue refuelers and most important of all the world’s largest air force and our partners in NORAD use them.

It would only make sense, which is why it will likely not happen.

The C130 & the Airbus are not the same class of A/C. The C139 is NOT the same C130 of 30 or 40 years ago and that plane will be in service for a long time to come. The USAF has fleets of these going strong & will maintain the fleets for quite a few more years. The Canadian aircraft maintainance & rebuild companies give our A/C far better treatment than the USAF and, unlike our worn out Choppers, the C130 has something to rebuild on

[Guest Derek L]

The US is now saying that they may have to scrap the F-35 because its costs are out of control and Israel will have to think of another plan because they were going to buy the F35. No country can buy the plane for what it was told original not even Canada, the price is up to 103million per jet and climbing. Now, I guess its time Canada had an open bid? http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/u-s-may-scrap-f35-set-to-be-israel-s-fighter-jet-of-the-future-1.363626

No, they're not.

[Guest Derek L]

The C130 & the Airbus are not the same class of A/C. The C139 is NOT the same C130 of 30 or 40 years ago and that plane will be in service for a long time to come. The USAF has fleets of these going strong & will maintain the fleets for quite a few more years. The Canadian aircraft maintainance & rebuild companies give our A/C far better treatment than the USAF and, unlike our worn out Choppers, the C130 has something to rebuild on

The J's have already started to enter service, and the E's started being retired years ago. The United States does have a large fleet of older aircraft, but they unlike us, don't have the same average hours on any given airframe, the luxury of being able to spread out usage.......There are some KC-135s (707) that where built in the early 60s and , that have seen service in all the wars the US has been in since then and for the most part there number airframe hours are lower than alot of commercial jets that entered service in the late 80s early 90s.

It doesn't matter how good the maintence crews are, when the airframes are starting to warp, the aircraft is done.

[RNG]

The J's have already started to enter service, and the E's started being retired years ago. The United States does have a large fleet of older aircraft, but they unlike us, don't have the same average hours on any given airframe, the luxury of being able to spread out usage.......There are some KC-135s (707) that where built in the early 60s and , that have seen service in all the wars the US has been in since then and for the most part there number airframe hours are lower than alot of commercial jets that entered service in the late 80s early 90s.

It doesn't matter how good the maintence crews are, when the airframes are starting to warp, the aircraft is done.

People just don't get it. It's hours, not years from production.

Edited May 25, 2011 by RNG

[Guest Derek L]

People just don't get it. It's hours, not years from production.

And even more importantly, how many times the airframe has been pressurized/depressurized.

[Remiel]

People just don't get it. It's hours, not years from production.

The planes are planned to begin entering into service in the U.S. Air Force in 2013, but it is now believed that only in 2015 will the plane's final software package be fully integrated and only in 2016 will the "Block 3" series, with full technological capabilities, be ready for operational flights.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Remiel

[RNG]

Which has absolutely no relevance to my post. I'm talking about the "age" of aircraft that should be measured in terms of air hours and numbers of take-offs/landings, rather than calendar age. Apples and gorillas.

[Guest Derek L]

The planes are planned to begin entering into service in the U.S. Air Force in 2013, but it is now believed that only in 2015 will the plane's final software package be fully integrated and only in 2016 will the "Block 3" series, with full technological capabilities, be ready for operational flights.

Production aircraft (A & C) are already flying and Edwards AFB and Patuxent River NAS…..

[Topaz]

The following article will state why the F-35 won't happen and hopefully the Harper government will have the gonads to admit they are wrong and have an open bid on the tender and get on with the bidding and put this topic to bed once and for all. IF they chose not to, then they should be the seating government running the country! http://www.therecord.com/opinion/editorial/article/620762--canadian-f-35-stealth-fighters-may-never-take-off

[Wild Bill]

The following article will state why the F-35 won't happen and hopefully the Harper government will have the gonads to admit they are wrong and have an open bid on the tender and get on with the bidding and put this topic to bed once and for all. IF they chose not to, then they should be the seating government running the country! http://www.therecord.com/opinion/editorial/article/620762--canadian-f-35-stealth-fighters-may-never-take-off

Gee, for such an expert the guy who wrote the article seems to have just cut-and-pasted stuff from our own posters on MLW! I didn't see a single new thing other than what we've already chewed over right here.

What's more, he doesn't have a real conclusion either! Just his opinion, like the rest of us. Like most against the F-35 deal, he seems to have decided he didn't like it from the very first and then keeps looking for an argument to shoot it down. We don't know if we would be asked to accept huge price increases. We haven't been asked yet! We don't know if there's a lot of bugs to be fixed. The only version of the plane that seems to still be having trouble is the carrier landing version. Why should Canada care? We have no aircraft carriers!

This article is like most of the other negative POV's. It assumes that all the negative predictions are not predictions at all but established facts, like a psychic claiming a 100% accuracy record when most of its predictions have not yet come to pass.

They should be more honest and just admit that they don't want Canada to have any planes, ships or even rifles at all, or the soldiers that go with them!

[Guest Derek L]

Gee, for such an expert the guy who wrote the article seems to have just cut-and-pasted stuff from our own posters on MLW! I didn't see a single new thing other than what we've already chewed over right here.

What's more, he doesn't have a real conclusion either! Just his opinion, like the rest of us. Like most against the F-35 deal, he seems to have decided he didn't like it from the very first and then keeps looking for an argument to shoot it down. We don't know if we would be asked to accept huge price increases. We haven't been asked yet! We don't know if there's a lot of bugs to be fixed. The only version of the plane that seems to still be having trouble is the carrier landing version. Why should Canada care? We have no aircraft carriers!

This article is like most of the other negative POV's. It assumes that all the negative predictions are not predictions at all but established facts, like a psychic claiming a 100% accuracy record when most of its predictions have not yet come to pass.

They should be more honest and just admit that they don't want Canada to have any planes, ships or even rifles at all, or the soldiers that go with them!

Exactly Wild Bill, I read the first few lines of the link provided……..The same moronic argument about being a single engine type and the suitability for operations in the artic and along our coastlines……My response, ask these guys about operation involving a single engine type:

354TH FIGHTER WING

As the northernmost U.S. fighter wing in the world, the 354th Fighter Wing's F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft provides our nation with combat-ready forces capable of reaching anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere at moment's notice.

Or the various single engine types used by the USN/USMC at sea over the decades….ie A-7, AV-8B, A-4, F-8 etc…….

As I’ve stated prior, the most common causes of engine failure in a fighter are fuel contamination or battle damage………The first would affect both engines and due to the placement of the Hornet’s engines, the second would like affect both as well.

[Handsome Rob]

And I’ll add in fairness, the one role that it might really have excelled in (outside of being an interceptor), ironically, would have been in the delivery of tactical battlefield nukes in the Fulda Gap.

The Orenda Iroquois appeared to be far ahead of it's time, but I'm by no means a student of history.

[Handsome Rob]

Exactly Wild Bill, I read the first few lines of the link provided……..The same moronic argument about being a single engine type and the suitability for operations in the artic and along our coastlines……My response, ask these guys about operation involving a single engine type:

354TH FIGHTER WING

Or the various single engine types used by the USN/USMC at sea over the decades….ie A-7, AV-8B, A-4, F-8 etc…….

As I’ve stated prior, the most common causes of engine failure in a fighter are fuel contamination or battle damage………The first would affect both engines and due to the placement of the Hornet’s engines, the second would like affect both as well.

Adding to that.

The hull loss rate for single & multi engine military craft due to engine failure is nearly identical. Flying home on one engine is not the reason for adding a second engine.

Complete straw-man, the F-35 appears to have plenty of problems like every other defence program. If the anti-F35 crowd wants any semblance of legitimacy, they ought to stick to real world issues rather than just making a massive list of every possible negative scenario.

[Topaz]

I'm sure some Canadians are getting tired of this subject the the latest news out of the US isn't good for the F-35. Even though they are manufacturing this plane in Texas, only 20% of the testing has been done, 80% of the war fighting capability won't be finsihed for another 4 years and the cost for the US alone went from 69 Mil to 133Mil. This means that no matter what the Canadians government says, by US law, no country can buy the plane less than what the US has to pay and so its at least 133 Mil per plane. Is it so hard for Harper to admit he's wrong on this, rather than put Canadian Air Force pilots at risk and the debt higher? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/f-35-a-troubling-example-of-pentagon-spending/2011/12/23/gIQAGINIJP_story.html

[GostHacked]

I know it's a rallying point for any anti-Harper people out there and a really sexy thing to protest, but we'll be flying 40 year old designs by the time Canada takes their first F-35 delivery and there really aren't any other jets out there that can compete with the F-35.

The F-35 still has to prove itself in the field. It's not really a matter of it being the best choice, but really the only option we have. NATO in of itself is integration of militaries and if everyone uses the same kit, the training becomes interchangeable.

[GostHacked]

Adding to that.

The hull loss rate for single & multi engine military craft due to engine failure is nearly identical. Flying home on one engine is not the reason for adding a second engine.

Complete straw-man, the F-35 appears to have plenty of problems like every other defence program. If the anti-F35 crowd wants any semblance of legitimacy, they ought to stick to real world issues rather than just making a massive list of every possible negative scenario.

But when one engine cuts out for whatever reason, you will thank the manufacturer for including that second engine. Failure rate might be the same among single and dual engine craft, but while the single engine failure can result in a crash (not landing at an airport) the dual engine prevents that scenario from happening in the first place.

For the land and sea area our airforce has to cover, they would prefer two engines.

[Wild Bill]

But when one engine cuts out for whatever reason, you will thank the manufacturer for including that second engine. Failure rate might be the same among single and dual engine craft, but while the single engine failure can result in a crash (not landing at an airport) the dual engine prevents that scenario from happening in the first place.

For the land and sea area our airforce has to cover, they would prefer two engines.

I assume you asked them? Care to share the numbers of your poll?

[Wild Bill]

I'm sure some Canadians are getting tired of this subject the the latest news out of the US isn't good for the F-35. Even though they are manufacturing this plane in Texas, only 20% of the testing has been done, 80% of the war fighting capability won't be finsihed for another 4 years and the cost for the US alone went from 69 Mil to 133Mil. This means that no matter what the Canadians government says, by US law, no country can buy the plane less than what the US has to pay and so its at least 133 Mil per plane. Is it so hard for Harper to admit he's wrong on this, rather than put Canadian Air Force pilots at risk and the debt higher? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/f-35-a-troubling-example-of-pentagon-spending/2011/12/23/gIQAGINIJP_story.html

If the price balloons like you say Topaz then Harper can simply bail out! There is no actual purchase order at this time, or for a few years to come!

At present there is simply an agreement while the plane is being fully researched and developed. This agreement guarantees our place in the line. Without the agreement, we not only would go to the end of the line but we might not be allowed to buy any at all.

So with no price commitment how are we at risk? Other than for the fact that there is NO other aircraft designed and available that can do what the F-35 can do?

It truly is a case of the F-35 or nothing. Nothing truly useful, that is. Our politicians have a history of buying cheap biplanes when everyone else has monoplanes.

Actually, I'm wrong! Chretien bought us more expensive helicopters that didn't work as well, just to avoid the Tory choice that he had cancelled!

[Wilber]

But when one engine cuts out for whatever reason, you will thank the manufacturer for including that second engine. Failure rate might be the same among single and dual engine craft, but while the single engine failure can result in a crash (not landing at an airport) the dual engine prevents that scenario from happening in the first place.

For the land and sea area our airforce has to cover, they would prefer two engines.

The F-35 is intended to be the next generation fighter for USN carriers, eventually replacing the F-18. It has also been selected over a navalized Typhoon to be the fighter aircraft for the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth class carriers, the first of which is to be operational around the end of this decade. Neither of those navies has a problem with one engine and it is not the first time either of them have used single engine jet fighters on carriers.

The reason hull losses are similar for single and twin engine fighters is two fold. First, unlike commercial aircraft the engines in fighter aircraft are located in close proximity. A uncontained failure or fire in one engine often takes out the other one. Second, a twin engine aircraft has twice as much chance of having an engine fail as a single engine aircraft.

The use of more than one engine in fighter aircraft has always had more to do with the need for more power than one engine can provide than it has about providing redundancy.

On a side note.

In the early days of transoceanic flights, single engine aircraft were considered safer because no twins of the day were capable of maintaining altitude on one engine and the odds of having one engine fail with a twin were twice as great.

[Wild Bill]

On a side note.

In the early days of transoceanic flights, single engine aircraft were considered safer because no twins of the day were capable of maintaining altitude on one engine and the odds of having one engine fail with a twin were twice as great.

Once again we see the failure of logic! You can logically prove anything if you don't have all the facts!

Of course, it's not logic I'm slamming here. Many folks do not have enough info to hold a qualified opinion. However, they are reasonably bright and make the mistake of putting together what seems a logical argument from their perspective of ignorance.

The idea of having a spare engine seems entirely logical to the uninitiated, who have no idea of how such engines or aircraft actually WORK or any direct, hands on experience!

I remember how during the CB radio craze of the 70's how so many CB'ers would mount two antennae on their car. Invariably, if you asked them why they would tell you "Well, two gets out twice as good as one!"

Having a fair bit of REAL technical understanding of such antennae, I knew that this was baloney! The idea of having two antennae came from big trucking rigs, who would mount their CB antenna on a side mirror. Because of the bulk of the trailer this would block the signal towards the other side. Having a second antennae on the other side would fill in the pattern. What's more, the way they were fed power would cause some phase difference, in that the pattern would no longer be circular but more of a "butterfly - figure 8", so that the antennae would work better front and back and less so to the sides. This meant better communication with other trucks up ahead, which was usually more important to a driver.

Anyhow, one day a CB'er came into our local coffee shop. He pulled up in a Volkswagon beetle, with two florescent orange 9' CB whip antennae on the front bumper. It looked like a REAL beetle!

He came swaggering in with a CB walkie talkie on each hip, with the whips extended! Everyone in line promptly moved away from him, for fear of getting poked in an eye.

My friends at the table all hid smiles, knowing that I would not be able to resist. I waved at the gentleman and said "I see by your car you're a CB operator! I was wondering why you have 2 antennae?"

The CB'er hitched up his pants, puffed out his chest and said in return "Well, of course 2 gets out twice as good as one!"

I replied "Gee, then why don't you use 4? Or 8? Hey, with 16 I bet you could talk to Tierre Del Fuego!"

The CB'er scowled, grabbed his coffee and stormed out the door, without a word.

Looking back, I feel a bit sorry for him. He held a belief that seemed perfectly logical to one who had no actual knowledge of radio electronics. Few CB'ers actually did, since it was a service for operators, not technicians. If they actually know any electronics they tend to become ham radio operators.

So, if two engines are safer why not install 4? Or 8? Or 16?

Or a bigger gas tank so they don't run out and get stranded in the air!

[Wilber]

So, if two engines are safer why not install 4? Or 8? Or 16?

Or a bigger gas tank so they don't run out and get stranded in the air!

Fighters are the F1 cars of aviation. Performance is number one and that more than anything will dictate the number of engines used.