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

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh gosh. What an intelligent response. How on earth would anyone respond to this?

The same way Saab did:

Saab withdraws from RCAF's CF-18 fighter replacement programme

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newssaab-withdraws-from-rcafs-cf-18-fighter-replacement-programme

Edited December 1, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

So Lockheed will be invited for show, knowing the government has no intention of awarding them a contract regardless of the outcome. There's integrity for ya.

Right....maybe Trudeau thinks it's peanuts for these contractors to put on a dog and pony show to win...peanuts.

[WestCoastRunner]

The same way Saab did:

Saab withdraws from RCAF's CF-18 fighter replacement programme

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newssaab-withdraws-from-rcafs-cf-18-fighter-replacement-programme

If you have anything intelligent to provide why don't you just provide it in the first place instead of trolling for reactions to your silly posts.

[Derek 2.0]

What would happen if Canada holds a "competition" and nobody shows up ?

Wouldn't be unheard of, Saab pulled itself out already.........off the top of my head, DND's planned sidearm replacement program received a chorus of crickets chirps and the program got "paused"......

[Derek 2.0]

So Lockheed will be invited for show, knowing the government has no intention of awarding them a contract regardless of the outcome. There's integrity for ya.

Even though we will continue to be apart of the F-35 program.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you have anything intelligent to provide why don't you just provide it in the first place instead of trolling for reactions to your silly posts.

I did...please try to stay on topic like the rest of us.

[Derek 2.0]

If you have anything intelligent to provide why don't you just provide it in the first place instead of trolling for reactions to your silly posts.

In fairness, it has happened in the past with defense programs, in Canada and around the World. Inversely, losers of countless competitions have sued Governments, forcing a "do-over", and then win.

[bush_cheney2004]

In fairness, it has happened in the past with defense programs, in Canada and around the World. Inversely, losers of countless competitions have sued Governments, forcing a "do-over", and then win.

Worse than that, if Canada writes a new performance specification that excludes one or more platforms, they may not even bother to compete because of the added headaches. Just because it's the Liberal idea of fun doesn't mean everybody else has to play.

[bush_cheney2004]

Moving right along, we can begin eliminating the other options, just like before.

That's how Team F-35 has won most of the other "competitions".

[Derek 2.0]

Worse than that, if Canada writes a new performance specification that excludes one or more platforms, they may not even bother to compete because of the added headaches. Just because it's the Liberal idea of fun doesn't mean everybody else has to play.

Industrial off sets alone, I don't know how others can compete. Looking at just engines, there is no way a GE, Volvo, Rolls Royce or Snecma could offer more than what P&W already has established in Canada, building portions of the entire F135 engine for the entire production........

[bush_cheney2004]

Yep....once Labour and DND figure that out, the F-35 will be stealthy kilometers ahead.

The "fix" is in....

[Derek 2.0]

Yep....once Labour and DND figure that out, the F-35 will be stealthy kilometers ahead.

The "fix" is in....

Right, there are already ~30 Canadian companies building portions of the F-35, for a total production to be in the thousands, out to the 2030s......when the rubber hits the road, its hard for others, mostly those that are winding down their own production lines, to offer equal long term offsets that will last for 20+ years. Even if someone promised to set-up local Canadian production, aside from costing more, will only offer employment and revenue through the course of the Canadian order.........~65 aircraft would stretch a four year production cycle and cost a bloody fortune.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[bush_cheney2004]

...and the more this "file" languishes, the more it favours an F-35 programme that is ramping up, not down.

The last C-17 Globemaster III flew away from Long Beach yesterday to Texas for ultimate delivery to Qatar. These production lines do shut down without follow-on orders.

Edited December 1, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[segnosaur]

I've not seen any statistics from the butterball fans that say the F35 isn't a slug even compared with a loaded competitor. Just a bunch of claims (like this one). But even if that were the case, can you think of an instance when speed would be handy when you have no weapons? Hmmmm.... how about when you're heading home?

Except planes don't always return to base with no weapons. Often missions are called off (e.g. bombing runs when there are possible civilian casualties.) Or not all weapons are used.

You also make the mistake in assuming stealth is the only single advantageous trait that the F35 has. It is not. The improved avionics (better sensors and communications), and the new helmet (giving better situational awareness) are probably just as important as its stealth capabilities.

I didn't make that assumption, I merely said that it seemed risky to trade away speed, agility and weapons loading for one trait which has yet to be proven in air to air combat and which could be defeated by technological advances.

In other words, you DID make that assumption.

A plane is just more than its air frame and a paint coating... we are buying the complete package... air frame, radar, communications equipment, helmet, etc. You can't just assume we're trading away one feature for another... we are receiving a whole range of features.

And, of course, as I pointed out, we aren't necessarily risking speed, agility and weapons because the F35 is better in those areas than its detractors claim, based on its ability to carry weapons internally.

In fact, there are persistent stories that stealth aircraft can be detected by low frequency radar and that an F117 was downed over Serbia using an old SAM missile using this technique. The F117 also traded away speed and maneuverability for stealth.

Yes, an F117 was shot down over Serbia. But, you aren't necessarily dealing with the whole story...

First of all, the plane was detected in part when it launched its weapons (opening the bay doors increases radar signature), and partly because the serbs were listening in on Radio transmissions. (Makes it a bit easier to detect a plane if you overhead where the pilot is going...)

Secondly (and perhaps more importantly), non-stealth planes were also shot down and/or damaged in the same conflict, including an American F16s. (It should also be noted that, during various conflicts over Iraq, even more non-stealth planes were lost, and not one F117 or B2 was shot down. I wonder why you didn't mention the Iraq war?

Nobody claimed that stealth planes guaranteed the plane would not be detected. (Even the stealthiest plane has some radar cross section.) What it does is it improves the odds.

The butterball will be a hideously expensive flying white elephant if the stealth element is cracked.

Except of course, there are other advantages to the F35 other than stealth.

F35: 20 different missiles/bombs Granted, some of those programs are in development, but it certainly does look like the F35 is certainly competitive with the range of weapons it is able to carry.

Sure, if you loaded it up externally and trade away stealth, the one advantage you traded away everything else for. Truly a bomb truck at that point.

First of all, your argument was that the F35 was trading "weapons for stealth". What I have illustrated is that that particular argument was bunk. The F35 can carry an array of weapons that rivals pretty much any potential competitor. In fact, the F35 can carry a larger diversity of weapons than many of its competitors.

Secondly, you are falsely assuming that it has to carry those weapons externally. Many of them fit quite comfortably in its internal weapons bays. i.e. Can carry them without giving up stealth. Even the Meteor missile that you referred to earlier is being modified to be stored internally.

Oh, and by the way...Stealth is not an all-or-nothing concept. The object is to minimize the radar cross section. An F35 with a mix of external/internal weapons still has a smaller radar cross section (and this is less detectable) than an F18 or Gripen where all its weapons are carried externally.

Don't forget that the butterball was designed to play a supporting role to the F22 for the American military.

Ah yes, the old "F35 needs other planes to support it" argument. Which is more bunk.

The F22 was designed to be an air superiority fighter... Its got capabilities that no plane can touch, either now, or in the near future. Even if the U.S. decided to scrap the F35, it would not mean that whatever replaced it (F16s or F18s) would somehow become more important or become the dominate air-superiority fighter.

Its not that the F35 is a bad plane... its just that the F22 is a better plane (at least in doing what it was designed to do). Rather than comparing the F35 to the F22 or some imaginary alternative, you compare it to the options that we can buy.

And for those of you with an acknowledge financial interest in the outcome, the butterball must be very attractive.

The whole "you must have a financial interest in the outcome" is tired and lazy. (Heck, how do we know that you don't have Boeing stock, and thus have an interest in trashing the F35? Or maybe you're a sleeper agent for some terrorist organization that doesn't want us to have good weapons.)

Of course, in a way I do have a financial interest in the outcome... because our air force is supported by my tax dollars, I want them to get planes that are the best value for the money.

Go back and look at the various threads... not only will you find posts talking about the F35's capabilities, you will also find multiple post touting the price of the F35 as a reason to buy it. As other posters have stated, the F35 currently has a lower fly-away costs than some of its competitors (e.g. Typhoon). And while some alternatives appear cheaper (e.g. F18) the long term costs will likely be higher because it will eventually become an orphan plane.(Means spare parts will be harder to come by, and/or we have to purchase more planes up front to make up for the lack of replacements in the future.)

Edited December 1, 2015 by segnosaur

[Wilber]

I've not seen any statistics from the butterball fans that say the F35 isn't a slug even compared with a loaded competitor. Just a bunch of claims (like this one). But even if that were the case, can you think of an instance when speed would be handy when you have no weapons? Hmmmm.... how about when you're heading home?

Unless they are actually involved in combat or dropping bombs, aircraft will come back with their weapons, which means most of the time. There is no sense sending unarmed aircraft out on patrol or air cover missions. Less garbage hanging under the wings means less drag, which means less fuel burn, which means longer range or more loiter time.

[Derek 2.0]

Except planes don't always return to base with no weapons. Often missions are called off (e.g. bombing runs when there are possible civilian casualties.) Or not all weapons are used.

Further to that, in most circumstances, legacy aircraft aren't just carrying weapons as external stores, but fuel tanks, ECM and targeting pods, all of which can be jettisoned to reduce drag etc, allowing said aircraft to "run away" if required.....of course, on the F-35, ECM and targeting pods won't be required, as both functions are built into the aircraft. As to fuel, the F-35 will carry internally more fuel than our current Hornets typically do with the addition of external tanks.

And, of course, as I pointed out, we aren't necessarily risking speed, agility and weapons because the F35 is better in those areas than its detractors claim, based on its ability to carry weapons internally.

And by the pilots that have flown it, stating the F-35 is as agile or better than the F-16 and F/A-18.......comparing said aircraft to a F-35 with similar loads isn't even in the same ballpark.

Yes, an F117 was shot down over Serbia. But, you aren't necessarily dealing with the whole story...

Much of blame in the loss of the F-117 is actually attributed to complacency on the part of the USAF/NATO, that used the same air corridors (only 3 routes IIRC) in and out of Serbia, on a schedule near clockwork.........and of course, absent heavy jamming and SEAD support, no current legacy aircraft would survive in said environment.

Its not that the F35 is a bad plane... its just that the F22 is a better plane (at least in doing what it was designed to do). Rather than comparing the F35 to the F22 or some imaginary alternative, you compare it to the options that we can buy.

In some aspects........but, the current pinnacle of aerial warfare, the F-22 raptor, is itself starting to be dated in some respects...as its entire avionics architecture is built around 3 intel 80386 microprocessors........or better put, it has the computing power of three computers that you might have owned in the late 1980s.......This might sound bad on the surface, but legacy aircraft like the Super Hornet/Rafale/Eurofighter/Gripen etc are even further, a decade+, behind.....

The X-35, the early test aircraft, used a single 1.5 GHz processor, but the current block 3i F-35 software uses numerous and separate 3.5 GHz quad-processors.......the block 4 software, at the end of the decade will use even more........and unlike said legacy aircraft, the F-35 can be upgraded by removing a panel and replacing a motherboard.

Of course, the F-35's "computing power" has been the largest cause of delays and cost overruns, but now with nearly ~90% of the coding complete, the aircraft is leaps and bounds ahead of legacy aircraft.

Computer latency is the new measure of speed and agility for a combat aircraft.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yet another damning report.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428?trending_test_two_a&utm_expid=66866090-68.-Cr2byf7Q_GFlTznkUxh-Q.1&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F

[Wilber]

Yet another damning report.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-a-big-suprise-the-marines-f-35-operational-test-wa-1730583428?trending_test_two_a&utm_expid=66866090-68.-Cr2byf7Q_GFlTznkUxh-Q.1&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2F

That's over a year old.

[segnosaur]

Yet another damning report.

http://foxtrotalpha..../www.google.ca/

That's over a year old.

Actually its only a few months old. But, I doubt its a serious issue.

Its a new plane, on its first deployment. Its not surprising if there are a few little glitches to work out as the technicians learn how to deal with the plane. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't have problems at first.

(When Canada first started flying the CH-149 Cormorant, there were significant problems with maintenance, requiring many more hours of maintenance than initially predicted. Better experience by the maintenance crews has reduced that. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/47347/cracks-ground-canadian-eh_101-helos-%28oct.-20%29.html)

[segnosaur]

Its not that the F35 is a bad plane... its just that the F22 is a better plane (at least in doing what it was designed to do). Rather than comparing the F35 to the F22 or some imaginary alternative, you compare it to the options that we can buy.

In some aspects........but, the current pinnacle of aerial warfare, the F-22 raptor, is itself starting to be dated in some respects...as its entire avionics architecture is built around 3 intel 80386 microprocessors........or better put, it has the computing power of three computers that you might have owned in the late 1980s.......This might sound bad on the surface, but legacy aircraft like the Super Hornet/Rafale/Eurofighter/Gripen etc are even further, a decade+, behind.....

Hey, if a 386 was good enough for me to play Doom on a decade ago, its good enough to fly a plane!

Yes, I do recognize that the computing technology in the F35 is superior to the F22. (Other things on the F35 also beat the F22, like its targeting abilities and the ease of maintenance of its stealth coding.) But, I do think the F22 would have an edge in air-to-air combat (based on things like its vectored thrust and greater speed.)

[ReeferMadness]

I see there are a number of people who have drunk the kool-aid and will continue to swallow anything the pentagon tells them without question. I don't have time to respond point-by-point to everything that has been written. So, I just have a few points to make.

1. WRT F16/F18 pilots who say (publicly at least) that the F35 is superior, I ask you this? Would a test pilot who publicly shit all over a weapons system which has had hundreds of billions of dollars poured into it have any career options that didn't involve the words "would you like fries with that"?

2. I've seen multiple sources (including some credible ones like Richard Sprey) who've said that building a plane around stealth is a bad idea. The fact is that the F117 was brought down by a missile system from the cuban missile crisis era and I don't find the excuses offered here ("hey, no fair - my bomb bay door was open!") to be very reassuring.

3. Richard Sprey, one of the guys who designed the F16, has openly attacked not only the F35 but the concept of multi-mission aircraft and stealth.

You've compromised the airplane horribly for three different missions.

Maneuverability

In dogfights, it's hopeless.... the maneuverability is laughable

Air support

That's the most laughable of all... it's a terrible bomber

On stealth

the first thing to know about stealth is it's a scam - it doesn't work. Radars that were built in 1942 could detect every aircraft in the world today.....

the Mission

the point is to spend money - that is the mission of this airplane

On 5th generation

5th generation is another silly, mindless cliche - it doesn't mean anything

One last thing: Derek keeps claiming that the F35 will actually cost less than the competition. In fact the F35 was designed to be a low cost, general-purpose aircraft. However, all the information I've seen says the the butterball is way more expensive than the competition, particularly when it comes to operating costs.

Edited December 1, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[Derek 2.0]

Hey, if a 386 was good enough for me to play Doom on a decade ago, its good enough to fly a plane!

Yes, I do recognize that the computing technology in the F35 is superior to the F22. (Other things on the F35 also beat the F22, like its targeting abilities and the ease of maintenance of its stealth coding.) But, I do think the F22 would have an edge in air-to-air combat (based on things like its vectored thrust and greater speed.)

Maybe, but physical agility can be negated by the F-35's DAS, which allows it to target AAMs in any direction, 360 degrees.....combined with its powerful radar, that performs better than expected, so much so, not only does it allow the F-35 the ability to track an ICBM (a first in a fighter size aircraft) but something as small (and fast) as an artillery round......

[Derek 2.0]

3. Richard Sprey, one of the guys who designed the F16

It's Pierre Sprey, and he's far from credible, for instance, decades ago he also suggested the F-15 Eagle, AH-64 Apache and the Los Angeles class nuclear attack subs would be flops......and he didn't design the F-16 (or the YF-17, which became the Hornet), he was apart of the Pentagon team that came up with the concept of a lightweight fighter.........He never worked for General Dynamics or Northrop/McDonnell Douglas.........

As to the concept of a lightweight fighter? Through the natural course, limitations on the early F-16 and F/A-18 Hornets led to them both becoming heavier and more complex through to the present day, to allow both aircraft to be viable on a modern battlefield.......

One last thing: Derek keeps claiming that the F35 will actually cost less than the competition. In fact the F35 was designed to be a low cost, general-purpose aircraft. However, all the information I've seen says the the butterball is way more expensive than the competition, particularly when it comes to operating costs.

No, the numbers you're citing are average hourly operating costs, which are a figure obtained by the actual sunk costs, divided by the number of aircraft in a given fleet........i.e, if you had a fleet of 65 F-35s and I had a fleet of 1000, my average hourly operating cost would be far less, even though my sunk support costs would be far greater.

[ReeferMadness]

It's Pierre Sprey, and he's far from credible,.....

Huh. And is Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert also lacking in credibility? Here's what he says:

You can only go so fast, and you know that stealth may be overrated ... Let's face it, if something moves fast through the air, disrupts molecules and puts out heat — I don't care how cool the engine can be, it's going to be detectable.

No, the numbers you're citing are average hourly operating costs, which are a figure obtained by the actual sunk costs, divided by the number of aircraft in a given fleet........i.e, if you had a fleet of 65 F-35s and I had a fleet of 1000, my average hourly operating cost would be far less, even though my sunk support costs would be far greater.

Nonsense. The butterball's operational costs are through the roof - and it has nothing to do with procurement costs.

[bush_cheney2004]

I see there are a number of people who have drunk the kool-aid and will continue to swallow anything the pentagon tells them without question.

Pentagon reports for operating costs seemed to be fine for F-35 critics....Canada's DND didn't even know how much actual CF-18 flight hour costs were so instead used American (Pentagon) F/A-18 E/F/G flight hour costs because apparently the Canadian data was "too hard" to aggregate.