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

[Smallc]

Seriously, we already operate Hawks for NATO training. Seems like a replacement should be a no brainer if we could still get some more. Or have we missed that boat as well?

We don't own the hawks.

[Wilber]

We don't own the hawks.

We operate them though. Everything is in place except the aircraft.

[Derek 2.0]

didn't say there were; however, there will be... long before those extended dates into the 2040s, 2050s and now where you even speak of flying the F-35 into the 2060s! And again, that will be... that should be a consideration for any country that presumes on requiring any jet fighter for any long-term extended usage. You have no qualms in touting technology advances... until such talk and eventuality infringes on the lifetime of the F-35.

.

.

As I said, the technology could be available in that timeline (~2050), which would coincide with the eventual replacement of the F-35........but that does little good for us now. As to a F-35 lifespan in our service, based on our current Hornet's service life, ~2025-2060 isn't unreasonable.......our Hornets will be approaching 40 years service once they are retired.

isn't it at all surprising no such list/accounting is out there? You say the information exists, that it's all out there, and yet no summary accounting to that end, as I'm aware... apparently, as you're aware, exists! Why would that be?

There could be a "list", but I don't know what purpose it would serve.....

Edited December 2, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

should there be that 'flip-flop'... you've even gone so far as to suggest LockMart might bring legal suit to ensure the F-35 is included... your "who would care" statement is here to ensure you don't come back and show you care by speaking to your wishful hoping for "flip flop"... cause you won't care, right?

.

If Lockheed were precluded by name/product, I've no doubt there would be a legal/trade challenge, if not just by Lockheed, but by the United States Government.

I don't understand the rest of your allegation.......

your link states the F-35 is already into that phase... since 2006. Do you have anything to support those partner level payment requirements... my googlies continue to fail me?

Not offhand, but I think there was a cited pdf in one of the earlier threads.......IIRC, the Canadian investment commitment was just under 1 billion through production, and opened ended with through life support/ upgrades.

[Derek 2.0]

a 'large one-time purchase block buy'? When has that ever been the stated intent for the F-35? If only we had some kind of a list... a summary accounting of presumed country-by-country intent by time frame. The "missing list", hey!

For Canada or the entire program? For Canada its been a common practice for a large single purchase, versus say the British (that have already) that will purchase their F-35Bs in various blocks.

[Derek 2.0]

Re Snowbirds. We should be able to get another 30 years out of those old things.

Not likely.....there continued use would be akin to a police force today still using '68 Galaxies........they've been able to be used for so long simply by the then large numbers of Tutors we bought decades ago, providing a large attrition reserve once we retired them as trainers.

[Wilber]

Na, they're the same age as our Sea Kings. Lots of life left.

[DogOnPorch]

Meh...we should go whole-hog on drones. Big ones that are scary....right out of Terminator.

[Derek 2.0]

Na, they're the same age as our Sea Kings. Lots of life left.

The Sea Kings didn't have a career pulling 5 Gs (~7 for the double solos).....

[Wilber]

The Sea Kings didn't have a career pulling 5 Gs (~7 for the double solos).....

Details, details.

[segnosaur]

Meh...we should go whole-hog on drones. Big ones that are scary....right out of Terminator.

Not sure how serious you are about that. But, it is common for opponents of the F35 to suggest we go with unmanned drones.

While drones may eventually replace manned fighters/bombers, the technology to make that possible probably won't be around for a decade or two. The main problem I see is one of situational awareness... we don't yet have the ability to make the pilots feel as if they are in complete control. (Vision is limited to only part of the sky, and motion senses are not present at all.) Designers will have to figure out how to provide a 360 degree view of the sky, with no lag time and a completely secure data link, before drones would be feasible.

[DogOnPorch]

JPL/NASA can send a probe to skim over Pluto's surface.

I think those responsible will perfect drone technology...soon.

[segnosaur]

JPL/NASA can send a probe to skim over Pluto's surface.

And multiple probes have also been lost... Mars Observer, Mars Polar Lander, etc. Probably 1/3 of them have failed.

And, I should point out, the technological challenges in both cases are quite different... Space probes have to deal with an environment that is relatively predictable. (We pretty much knew where Pluto was going to be...). Military drones have to deal with situations that are much more dynamic... targets move, hostile planes may appear. This requires a significantly different set of controls.

And, I should point out... if a space probe fails, NASA gets embarrassed. If a drone fails, it could kill many innocent people.

[DogOnPorch]

And multiple probes have also been lost... Mars Observer, Mars Polar Lander, etc. Probably 1/3 of them have failed.

And, I should point out, the technological challenges in both cases are quite different... Space probes have to deal with an environment that is relatively predictable. (We pretty much knew where Pluto was going to be...). Military drones have to deal with situations that are much more dynamic... targets move, hostile planes may appear. This requires a significantly different set of controls.

And, I should point out... if a space probe fails, NASA gets embarrassed. If a drone fails, it could kill many innocent people.

Situational awareness is an issue. But it isn't going to put any kibosh on drones.

Innocence in war...a strange concept. We worry about it. The enemy does not.

[Derek 2.0]

While drones may eventually replace manned fighters/bombers, the technology to make that possible probably won't be around for a decade or two. The main problem I see is one of situational awareness... we don't yet have the ability to make the pilots feel as if they are in complete control. (Vision is limited to only part of the sky, and motion senses are not present at all.) Designers will have to figure out how to provide a 360 degree view of the sky, with no lag time and a completely secure data link, before drones would be feasible.

Right you are, and said awareness will be furthered by technology developed for the F-35.........then the next hurdle becomes secure, faster, bandwidth/communications. Right now, the largest, most advanced military on the planet, only has the ability to operate ~24-30 medium/large UAVs, in highly restricted airspace, at anyone time..........

Then the next question, as you mentioned, is lag.......slight lag talking to someone on Skype or playing a video game is one thing, in a combat environment, its life or death.........then after that, is secure communications........can you imagine your air force being grounded because it was hacked or jammed? These are all hurdles that will have to be overcome.

As to timeline, look no further than the proposed 6th generation of military aircraft.......still have seats in them.....I don't doubt, as I've said numerous times, UAV/UCAVs will become more commonplace, and will supplement manned flight in certain roles, but they won't replace manned flight for generations.

[waldo]

While drones may eventually replace manned fighters/bombers, the technology to make that possible probably won't be around for a decade or two.

accepting to your own 'UCAV a decade away' time frame, how does that align with anyone making highly presumptive suggestion that the F-35 will be flown by countries, by Canada, well into the 50s? Why, it was MLW member D2.0 who just a few short posts back even dropped the 2060s into that mix! Something seems quite amiss here, yes?

.

[waldo]

oh my! If everything is just so peachy in Australia's F-35 procurement process, why would the Australian Senate just vote to review it?

... to report by 1 May 2016:
The planned acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter), with particular reference to:

a - the future air defence needs That the aircraft is intended to fulfil;
b - the cost and benefits of the program to Australia, including industrial costs and benefits received and forecast;
c - changes in the acquisition timeline;
d - the performance of the aircraft in testing;
e - potential alternatives to the Joint Strike Fighter; and
f - any other related matters.
.

[Derek 2.0]

accepting to your own 'UCAV a decade away' time frame, how does that align with anyone making highly presumptive suggestion that the F-35 will be flown by countries, by Canada, well into the 50s? Why, it was MLW member D2.0 who just a few short posts back even dropped the 2060s into that mix! Something seems quite amiss here, yes?

.

Simple, the joint program office is projecting a 55 year service life with the United States military........~2010 + 55 = ?

[waldo]

Simple, the joint program office is projecting a 55 year service life with the United States military........~2010 + 55 = ?

allrightee! Given you have chosen to link to Loren Thompson, you will no longer be able to complain about F-35 detractors linking to the likes of Pierre Sprey, Winston Wheeler et al

at some point you'll need to commit to a legitimate time frame for UCAV versus manned fighter jet. You can't continue to project upon technology advances until they contradict the service life of the F-35.

[Derek 2.0]

allrightee! Given you have chosen to link to Loren Thompson, you will no longer be able to complain about F-35 detractors linking to the likes of Pierre Sprey, Winston Wheeler et al

Thompson isn't offering his opinion, but retelling information from the DoD.

at some point you'll need to commit to a legitimate time frame for UCAV versus manned fighter jet. You can't continue to project upon technology advances until they contradict the service life of the F-35.

The US military and industry can't, so I don't know how I would........as I said, based on the early information, made public by said parties, the 6th generation fighters (that will replace the F-15/F-22/Super Hornet) will still be manned, likewise the recently signed bomber program (LRS- ........the next generation UCAV program that will enter service in the later 2020s, though far more advanced than the current crop (like Reapers), will still be limited in its niche roles.......

[segnosaur]

While drones may eventually replace manned fighters/bombers, the technology to make that possible probably won't be around for a decade or two.

accepting to your own 'UCAV a decade away' time frame, how does that align with anyone making highly presumptive suggestion that the F-35 will be flown by countries, by Canada, well into the 50s? Why, it was MLW member D2.0 who just a few short posts back even dropped the 2060s into that mix! Something seems quite amiss here, yes?

First of all, remember I said the technology needed would be "a decade or two" away. i.e. it is a very rough guess, but it is likely more than 10 years away.

Secondly, I didn't say that a UCAV could be deployed in that time. I said the technology would be available. Once the technology exists, then it can be put into a plane. But even then, you're probably talking about another decade of development time. (The Typhoon, Gripen, and F35 all took roughly a decade from initial prototypes to actual introduction into air forces.) Then, once you actually have a marketable plane, it usually takes time from the initial purchase until the plane is in full service. (The decision to purchase the CF18 was made in 1980, and the last plane was delivered in 1988, roughly another decade.)

So, lets say we decided we wanted an all-drone airforce. Overall you have:

~10/20 years to develop the technology

~10 years to turn the technology into functional product

~10 years for the actual procurement process (buying the plane, having them manufactured and delivered, and the old product phased out.)

So, you're probably looking at 3-4 decades. If its 2015 now, in 3-4 decades it will be ~2050.

[Smallc]

When we have estimated of the F-15 and F-16 serving with some airforces until 2050 or so, I think some of you are being very optimistic with your timelines.

[ReeferMadness]

at some point you'll need to commit to a legitimate time frame for UCAV versus manned fighter jet. You can't continue to project upon technology advances until they contradict the service life of the F-35.

He'll probably have sold his shares before the service life is over, anyway.

Apparently, Saab is considering an unmanned version of the Gripen.

[bush_cheney2004]

UAVs/UCAVs for Canada would also involved a significant investment in supporting infrastructure that currently does not exist. Tactical control systems ride on top of secure communications capability and capacity, which is finite and controlled by competing interests and mission priorities.

Long story short, it is not currently possible to perform all current missions with unmanned aircraft even if they were fully developed and operational.

[waldo]

Long story short, it is not currently possible to perform all current missions with unmanned aircraft even if they were fully developed and operational.

short story even shorter... the suggestion wasn't "now"; rather, the suggestion was drones would be viable alternatives well before the trumpeted extended 2050s/2060s F-35 life cycle.