F-35 Purchase Cancelled; CF-18 replacement process begins

[bush_cheney2004]

....I thought some members suggested the F-35 wouldn’t be selected by the Japanese Defence Force….

Nothing like a possible war to get 'em off the pot when it comes to buying tactical aircraft. The DPRK is great for sales !!

[Guest Derek L]

Nothing like a possible war to get 'em off the pot when it comes to buying tactical aircraft. The DPRK is great for sales !!

Indeed, if the House of Kim keeps up their mischief, we should see the South's plans speed up too....Perhaps the recent deployment from Whiteman wasn’t only a rattling sabre……but also an attempt for the South Korean air force to see the advantages of LO aircraft firsthand....

[eyeball]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy...can't wait till the shooting starts eh?.

Got pop-corn?

[Guest Derek L]

Oh boy oh boy oh boy...can't wait till the shooting starts eh?.

Got pop-corn?

Well Noo-ku-lar combat, toe to toe with the North Koreans, would likely be over prior to the popcorn being finished.......

[PIK]

I see the F-22 are flying, to bad they would not sell us that one.

[Guest Derek L]

I see the F-22 are flying, to bad they would not sell us that one.

Even if they were still produced and they would sell them to us, they wouldn’t meet all our requirements of a multi-role aircraft, based on it’s lacklustre ability to move mud.

[GostHacked]

This is quite funny.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/07/pol-lockheed-martin-f35-pr-campaign.html

Lockheed Martin, the giant U.S. defence contractor, is launching a cross-Canada publicity blitz to convince Canadians to buy its F-35 stealth fighter jet — but it's simultaneously raising the price by a hefty $20 million US a plane.

Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice-president for the F-35 program, said just 18 months ago that Canada would pay $65 million per plane. Now, O'Bryan tells CBC News the price is $85 million.

Seems like some here had called this that the price of the aircraft would go up substantially. That is a 33% increase in price. I am sure we can spend 20 mill on something way more productive. And that is just the difference of price in ONE aircraft.

[DogOnPorch]

I am sure we can spend 20 mill on something way more productive.

Upgraded ejection seats for the CF-18.

[Guest Derek L]

This is quite funny.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/04/07/pol-lockheed-martin-f35-pr-campaign.htmlSeems like some here had called this that the price of the aircraft would go up substantially. That is a 33% increase in price. I am sure we can spend 20 mill on something way more productive. And that is just the difference of price in ONE aircraft.

The price quoted prior was not the "flyaway" price of the F-35.............And what's funny about Lockheed launching a PR campaign……….Boeing has been doing it ever since they lost the JSF competition.

[Bonam]

The price quoted prior was not the "flyaway" price of the F-35.............And what's funny about Lockheed launching a PR campaign……….Boeing has been doing it ever since they lost the JSF competition.

As well they should. While both the F-35 and F-22 are solid aircraft, both were significantly behind schedule and over budget, resulting in significantly scaled back purchases compared to initial projections. Boeing has a solid track record with both the F-18 and its variations as well as the F-15. Lockheed may be at a bit of a disadvantage in the competition for the next fighter given its problems with the F-22 and F-35 programs.

[shortlived]

Nothing like a possible war to get 'em off the pot when it comes to buying tactical aircraft. The DPRK is great for sales !!

Except the US's invasion plan includes b52's and b2.. and raptors not f35s b52s..

we could probably use them to replace the challengers too, just need to buy a few extra parachutes.

They might have as much stealth as the f35's under full load too

Edited April 9, 2013 by shortlived

[Guest Derek L]

As well they should. While both the F-35 and F-22 are solid aircraft, both were significantly behind schedule and over budget, resulting in significantly scaled back purchases compared to initial projections. Boeing has a solid track record with both the F-18 and its variations as well as the F-15. Lockheed may be at a bit of a disadvantage in the competition for the next fighter given its problems with the F-22 and F-35 programs.

Yes and no………I worked for IDS (now BDS) in the 90s, and yes, Boeing does have a successful track record in some regards, but the Super Hornet and Eagle (and the C-17 & AH-64) were all McDonnell Douglas pre merger………After merger you have the X-32, to say nothing about the Bell Textron (another former employer) and Boeing V-22.……..To say nothing of the controversy surrounding the lobbying effort that saw Boeing win, after a “do over”, the KC-X program…….Boeing has it’s warts also.

[Bonam]

Yes and no………I worked for IDS (now BDS) in the 90s, and yes, Boeing does have a successful track record in some regards, but the Super Hornet and Eagle (and the C-17 & AH-64) were all McDonnell Douglas pre merger………After merger you have the X-32, to say nothing about the Bell Textron (another former employer) and Boeing V-22.……..To say nothing of the controversy surrounding the lobbying effort that saw Boeing win, after a “do over”, the KC-X program…….Boeing has it’s warts also.

Well of course everyone has their own blemishes, but I just think after two big tries at the multirole stealth fighter on the part of Lockheed (F-22 and F-35), it might be Boeing's turn next time ;p And yes I realize F-15 and F-18 were pre-merger, but I assume Boeing has retained most of the capabilities of McDonnel Douglas.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-unveils-updated-fa-xx-sixth-gen-fighter-concept-384291/

Edited April 9, 2013 by Bonam

[Guest Derek L]

Well of course everyone has their own blemishes, but I just think after two big tries at the multirole stealth fighter on the part of Lockheed (F-22 and F-35), it might be Boeing's turn next time ;p And yes I realize F-15 and F-18 were pre-merger, but I assume Boeing has retained most of the capabilities of McDonnel Douglas.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-unveils-updated-fa-xx-sixth-gen-fighter-concept-384291/

Certainly, fore Boeing prior had no real recent experience in the military fighter arena, as McDonnell Douglas was bleeding market share with their commercial aviation division………..I still wouldn’t give Boeing a free pass, as they will lose a lot of corporate knowledge with the closure of the Super Hornet line in a couple of years, many will be retiring and many will be seeking jobs with LockMart since Boeing will be getting out of the manned fighter game for nearly a generation (Until the 6th gen in the 2030s)………..

As such, there is zero indication that Boeing will have a drastic edge over Lockheed, if anything, they will be at a disadvantage………That is of course based on their marketing arm not successfully scaring off F-35 buyers……..And remember, Boeing was the junior partner to Lockheed with the F-22 program, another avenue since closed for them……

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/boeing/f22.page

[Bonam]

Certainly, fore Boeing prior had no real recent experience in the military fighter arena, as McDonnell Douglas was bleeding market share with their commercial aviation division………..I still wouldn’t give Boeing a free pass, as they will lose a lot of corporate knowledge with the closure of the Super Hornet line in a couple of years, many will be retiring and many will be seeking jobs with LockMart since Boeing will be getting out of the manned fighter game for nearly a generation (Until the 6th gen in the 2030s)………..

Considering the development time for these types of aircraft, if the sixth gen ones are supposed to enter service in the mid 2030s, then development work on them will start very soon. The JSF program had its roots 21 years ago, and contracts to build prototypes were awarded 17 years ago.

I expect contracts for the development of a sixth gen fighter prototype to be handed out within a few years, perhaps before those super hornet assembly lines you mentioned even close. Not that there's that much overlap between the guys on the assembly lines and the guys at the Phantom works.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Bonam

[Guest Derek L]

Considering the development time for these types of aircraft, if the sixth gen ones are supposed to enter service in the mid 2030s, then development work on them will start very soon. The JSF program had its roots 21 years ago, and contracts to build prototypes were awarded 17 years ago.

I expect contracts for the development of a sixth gen fighter prototype to be handed out within a few years, perhaps before those super hornet assembly lines you mentioned even close. Not that there's that much overlap between the guys on the assembly lines and the guys at the Phantom works.

Phantom works will keep busy with UCAVs etc, a market Lockheed is also in mind you, but is currently being lead by Northrop (also a F-35 partner)………….As for their St Louis plant, that could see troubled times ahead, as such, and after taking a closer look at Boeing’s stable of 4th gen aircraft, one can see why Boeing is heavily involved with the anti F-35 lobby…………….I would seriously think if Boeing is to be thrown a bone, it will be the Bomber replacement project to replace the B-1 (If it doesn’t get the axe)………I think in all likelihood, if Boeing is involved in the 6th generation program, they will have to partner with either Lockheed or Northrop Grumman to leverage either companies corporate knowledge.

[Bonam]

I think in all likelihood, if Boeing is involved in the 6th generation program, they will have to partner with either Lockheed or Northrop Grumman to leverage either companies corporate knowledge.

Given recent trends, I'd expect that you're right. A sixth gen fighter will be a sufficiently mammoth undertaking, and the politics of it will play out such that, it will likely be contracted out to most major US aerospace/defense contractors as some kind of collaboration. The question remains who will be the lead, however.

As for the bomber replacement... personally I'm kind of doubtful there is ever gonna be a new generation of manned bomber that gets mass produced. Between multi-role fighters with ground attack weapons, drones, trident subs, and ICBMs, I don't know that a dedicated bomber role really makes sense anymore. And there's always the B-2 for now as well. They might develop some new prototype as part of the bomber replacement program, maybe even have like 2-5 that enter service, but I really really doubt a new advanced bomber is ever gonna be built in large numbers.

[DogOnPorch]

Some form of strategic bomber will exist as the 3rd leg of America's nuclear policy. The B-2 might need to fill that role for quite some time.

[Bonam]

Some form of strategic bomber will exist as the 3rd leg of America's nuclear policy. The B-2 might need to fill that role for quite some time.

I've heard considerable talk of moving away from the nuclear triad doctrine and realigning to just two means of delivery of strategic nuclear weapons. Also, keep in mind the B61 mod 12 nuclear bomb is designed to be deployed by F-35s, rather than a dedicated bomber.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Bonam

[DogOnPorch]

One thing that's going to be an increasingly major element is these.

They'll make missiles much less a sure thing. Stealth will be that much more important. I think bombers will surprise us...again.

[Bonam]

It's a lot easier to make a stealthy missile, or a stealthy re-entry vehicle. It can be completely unpowered and passive in the re-entry phase in addition to having all the airframe features to reduce radar cross-section. Not to mention much smaller than a manned bomber designed to fly ten thousand miles. And again, for the case where you really do need to deploy bombs at short range from a plane, that's what the F-35 and later the 6th gen fighter will be for.

[DogOnPorch]

By bomber I mean carrier of a bunch of stealthy missiles. Plus, in a bush war, nothing on Earth moves many tons of dirt in one run quite like a B-52. We'll see...

[Guest Derek L]

Given recent trends, I'd expect that you're right. A sixth gen fighter will be a sufficiently mammoth undertaking, and the politics of it will play out such that, it will likely be contracted out to most major US aerospace/defense contractors as some kind of collaboration. The question remains who will be the lead, however.

Lockheed I suspect due in part to their experience with the F-35, and if Northrop wins a substantial UCAV project, coupled with their experience with the F-35, I would give the nod to one of the two of them.........Boeing, like General Dynamics, will start to slowly slip from the "game", and they know it.

As for the bomber replacement... personally I'm kind of doubtful there is ever gonna be a new generation of manned bomber that gets mass produced. Between multi-role fighters with ground attack weapons, drones, trident subs, and ICBMs, I don't know that a dedicated bomber role really makes sense anymore. And there's always the B-2 for now as well. They might develop some new prototype as part of the bomber replacement program, maybe even have like 2-5 that enter service, but I really really doubt a new advanced bomber is ever gonna be built in large numbers.

Simply put, the manned Bomber component of their strategic nuclear triad is more valuable, accurate and will last longer then the USAF’s ICBMs………Both the Bomber replacement and ICBM replacement will be expensive programs, yet as it’s been demonstrated in numerous conflicts since the Korean War, the strategic bomber component can make a valuable contribution to a conventional war, but also signals intelligence, reconnaissance and as a close support asset……..The ICBMs stay in their holes…….

And I can’t see the Americans relying on a unmanned component for their nuclear arsenal.

[shortlived]

Lockheed I suspect due in part to their experience with the F-35, and if Northrop wins a substantial UCAV project, coupled with their experience with the F-35, I would give the nod to one of the two of them.........Boeing, like General Dynamics, will start to slowly slip from the "game", and they know it.

Simply put, the manned Bomber component of their strategic nuclear triad is more valuable, accurate and will last longer then the USAF’s ICBMs………Both the Bomber replacement and ICBM replacement will be expensive programs, yet as it’s been demonstrated in numerous conflicts since the Korean War, the strategic bomber component can make a valuable contribution to a conventional war, but also signals intelligence, reconnaissance and as a close support asset……..The ICBMs stay in their holes…….

And I can’t see the Americans relying on a unmanned component for their nuclear arsenal.

Derek do you have stock in Lockheed Martin?

[Guest Derek L]

Derek do you have stock in Lockheed Martin?

Yup, but much more in Boeing.