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

Derek 2.0 · December 4, 2015

I think improvements should be made over a period of time with the first focus being connecting up the radar stations. Satellite/high frequency radio seems pretty hokey to me. They're building an all weather road as far north as Tuktoyaktuk. I hope they are laying fibre as they do it. It will cost money but if they are smart and do it over time, it needn't be billions (or at least it will be spread over years). As you said, satellite comms are horribly expensive and the costs could be defrayed over time.

Spreading out costs has the opposite effect.........and like any project in the North

Does Alert have an airfield where a Gripen could land? They could base the operator there and run patrols in the high arctic.

With work, most airstrips in the North could handle fighters......Canadian North and First Air fly weekly flights into gravel strips with 737s throughout most of the Western Arctic.......

But why would you want to base fighters there?

waldo · December 4, 2015

...and South Korea, joined the program after competitions with the cited alternatives?

competitions? Well no; as you're well aware Korea has designs on building its own jet and LockMart gained that decision by promising Korea it would have access to key technology transfers within the F-35 program... transfers it had designs on leveraging within its own intended Korean built 'KFX' plane. And now, in September, its learned the U.S. has denied Korea access to some of those key technologies and is actively in review (with Korea) and how it intends to use others... where speculation abounds that access will also be refused to these others. Now, up to the point of that LockMart promise, now unfulfilled, Boeing was the lead contender. And now?

.

eyeball · December 4, 2015

Canada isn't as large as Sweden, which credibly produces one candidate replacement "jet" (Gripen) ?

Your response is not credible...something else must be at work here.

It seems really simple to me. I chalk it up to our unconsciously adopting the same defensive strategy that great blue heron's do. Eagles feed on the odd juvenile heron but they're also territorial and prevent other eagles from eating more. Nesting in colonies around an eagle's nest clearly benefits the collective.

We lose the odd snow-bird and corporation to you but that's a small price in the scheme of things. Taking advantage of your protection just comes naturally and the ease with which it does appears to be reflected in our approach to militarization. There's just no real point to it.

Edited December 4, 2015 by eyeball

Derek 2.0 · December 4, 2015

competitions? Well no; as you're well aware Korea has designs on building its own jet and LockMart gained that decision by promising Korea it would have access to key technology transfers within the F-35 program... transfers it had designs on leveraging within its own intended Korean built 'KFX' plane. And now, in September, its learned the U.S. has denied Korea access to some of those key technologies and is actively in review (with Korea) and how it intends to use others... where speculation abounds that access will also be refused to these others. Now, up to the point of that LockMart promise, now unfulfilled, Boeing was the lead contender. And now?

.

Lockheed didn't break any promises to the Koreans, as the technologies they promised were transferred, the US Government refused the transfer of the (Northrop built) radar, which Lockheed agreed to lobby the US Government on behalf of the South Koreans.........As to Boeing, the point is moot, as its been made clear by the US Government, they won't allow the transfer of their advanced radars and barring an Israeli order (their compensation for the Iran deal), the Eagle line will be closed in St Louis...

On Guard for Thee · December 4, 2015

St. Louis will be busy making Super Hornets.

waldo · December 4, 2015

Lockheed didn't break any promises to the Koreans, as the technologies they promised were transferred, the US Government refused the transfer of the (Northrop built) radar, which Lockheed agreed to lobby the US Government on behalf of the South Koreans........

you're taking yet another liberty with tense! There is no "were transferred"; to date, 4 of the 25 technology related transfers have been denied by the U.S. government... 21 are still under review. Perhaps you have late-breaking news that states these remaining 21 have now been granted - yes? Any information I've read concerning that offset deal doesn't include detail that speaks to simple "lobbying efforts by LockMart"... that they'll give it the ole' college try in obtaining those transfers! Korea made that decision over other manufacturer options based on leveraging technology transfers from LockMart. And apparently Indonesia is now raising concerns over its 20% funding stake in KFX given the refusal of these initial technology transfers.

Derek 2.0 · December 4, 2015

you're taking yet another liberty with tense! There is no "were transferred"; to date, 4 of the 25 technology related transfers have been denied by the U.S. government... 21 are still under review. Perhaps you have late-breaking news that states these remaining 21 have now been granted - yes? Any information I've read concerning that offset deal doesn't include detail that speaks to simple "lobbying efforts by LockMart"... that they'll give it the ole' college try in obtaining those transfers! Korea made that decision over other manufacturer options based on leveraging technology transfers from LockMart. And apparently Indonesia is now raising concerns over its 20% funding stake in KFX given the refusal of these initial technology transfers.

Maybe, but at the end of the day, the kibosh was given by the US Government...........I never knew of the Indonesian angle, but with their defense relationship with the Russians, I can't say I'm surprised....

waldo · December 4, 2015

all this MLW member bluster/bravado about the F-35 IOP 'combat ready' state and the absolute confidence in the U.S. military being able to secure funding for each successive "production" year... doesn't quite align with the most recent U.S. GAO report - go figure!

What GAO Found
GAO’s ongoing work on the F-35—Joint Strike Fighter—program shows that the program has continued to experience development and testing discoveries over the past year, largely due to a structural failure on the F-35B durability test aircraft, an engine failure, and more test point growth due to software challenges than expected. Together, these factors have resulted in delays to the program’s test schedule. In addition, the F-35 engine reliability is not improving as expected and will take additional time and resources to achieve reliability goals. With flight testing of more complex software and advanced capabilities still ahead, additional technical discoveries during testing and subsequent design changes are likely. At the same time, the Department of Defense (DOD) plans to significantly increase production rates over the next 5 years. Increasing production while concurrently developing and testing creates risk and could result in additional cost growth and schedule delays.

Manufacturing progress has continued despite mixed supplier performance. The aircraft contractor delivered 36 aircraft as planned in 2014; however, none of these were delivered with warfighting capabilities. However, the labor hours needed to manufacture an aircraft and the number of major design changes have continued to decline over time. Supplier performance has been mixed, and late deliveries could pose risk to the program's plans to increase production. The contractors are taking steps to address these issues.

Cost and affordability challenges for the F-35 persist. To execute its current procurement plan, the F-35 program will need to request and obtain, on average, $12.4 billion annually in acquisition funds for more than two decades. From fiscal years 2015 to 2019, DOD plans to increase development and procurement funding for the F-35 from around $8 billion to around $12 billion, an investment of more than $54 billion over that 5-year period. This funding reflects the U.S. military services’ plans to significantly increase annual aircraft procurements from 38 in 2015 to 90 in 2019. Annual U.S. procurements peak at 120 aircraft in 2022, and will require between $14 and $15 billion annually for nearly a decade. It is unlikely DOD will be able to sustain such a high level of annual funding and if required funding levels are not reached, the program’s procurement plan may not be affordable.

Why GAO Did This Study

With estimated acquisition costs of nearly $400 billion, the F-35 Lightning II—also known as the Joint Strike Fighter—is DOD's most costly and ambitious acquisition program. The U.S. portion of the program will require annual acquisition funding of $12.4 billion on average through 2038 to complete development and procure a total of 2,457 aircraft. GAO’s prior work has found that the program has experienced significant cost, schedule, and performance problems.

In 2009, Congress mandated that GAO review the F-35 acquisition program annually for 6 years. This testimony focuses on GAO’s April 2015 report regarding the F-35 program's (1) development and testing progress, (2) manufacturing and supplier performance, and (3) cost and affordability.

In order to conduct the work on which this statement is based, GAO reviewed and analyzed the latest available manufacturing, testing, and performance data; program test plans; and internal DOD analyses; and interviewed DOD, program, and engine and aircraft contractor officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations today, but has made a recommendation for DOD to conduct an affordability analysis of the program’s current procurement plan that reflects various assumptions. DOD concurred with this recommendation.

Derek 2.0 · December 4, 2015

all this MLW member bluster/bravado about the F-35 IOP 'combat ready' state and the absolute confidence in the U.S. military being able to secure funding for each successive "production" year... doesn't quite align with the most recent U.S. GAO report - go figure!

You realize said report, released in April of this year, is covering the 2014 fiscal year.........and the Marines didn't declare their first squadron operational until this past Summer?

One thing from the report worth noting:

Annual U.S. procurements peak at 120 aircraft in 2022, and will require between $14 and $15 billion annually for nearly a decade.

Is that to suggest 65 aircraft would require between $7 and $8 billion (USD) in 2022.......

waldo · December 4, 2015

You realize said report, released in April of this year, is covering the 2014 fiscal year.........and the Marines didn't declare their first squadron operational until this past Summer?

yes - to Dec 2014; following the annual release, it's the most current available. Your premise would have to be that LockMart miraculously turned everything around from 2014 in a short 6 months! As you won't acknowledge that U.S. Marine IOP designation was pure LockMart driven propaganda... which cycles us once again back to those May sea-testing trials where even with LockMart attempting to stack the deck with key contractors and cargo planes to 'ferry in' replacement parts (hardly a combat scenario), the trials were an abysmal failure.

per a Freedom of Information request, that failure was acknowledged by an internal Pentagon report that stated: "The event was not an operational test, though, in either a formal or informal sense of the term. Furthermore, it did not - and could not - demonstrate that the Block 2B F-35B is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation, or that it is ready for real-world operational deployments given the way the event was structured." And then just weeks later... somehow... the Marines gave it IOP designation - go figure, hey!

.

One thing from the report worth noting:

Is that to suggest 65 aircraft would require between $7 and $8 billion (USD) in 2022.......

uhhh no! That's not the U.S. GAO providing its own reviewed and analyzed costing figures... that's the U.S. GAO providing the figures presented to it by DOD/LockMart. The worth noting parts are the parts you're ignoring and attempting to deflect away from. Again, the most suspect program design aspect of interoperability rises again... attempting to continue to produce planes in the midst of critical testing phases. Again, a part of the quote you completely did a fly-by over:

"With flight testing of more complex software and advanced capabilities still ahead, additional technical discoveries during testing and subsequent design changes are likely. At the same time, the Department of Defense (DOD) plans to significantly increase production rates over the next 5 years. Increasing production while concurrently developing and testing creates risk and could result in additional cost growth and schedule delays."

notwithstanding, of course, even at those lowest of low LockMart cost projections, without regard to increased costs associated with interoperability, the big ASSUME still reigns supreme... that the U.S. government (and the ever more impacting fiscally conservative Congress), in times of fiscal restraint and military cutbacks, will simply pony up, year over year, those billions upon billions of F-35 procurement dollars.

.

Derek 2.0 · December 4, 2015

yes - to Dec 2014; following the annual release, it's the most current available. Your premise would have to be that LockMart miraculously turned everything around from 2014 in a short 6 months! As you won't acknowledge that U.S. Marine IOP designation was pure LockMart driven propaganda... which cycles us once again back to those May sea-testing trials where even with LockMart attempting to stack the deck with key contractors and cargo planes to 'ferry in' replacement parts (hardly a combat scenario), the trials were an abysmal failure.

Sure, why not? Most of the cited concerns were logistic related, any operational squadron will have its own logistic tail. And no, I don't feel the IOP was propaganda, but proof of concept.......suggesting the the F-35B wasn't operational before it was declared operational is hardly a condemnation.....................and "cargo planes" (COD/ carrier onboard delivery) are a regular part of all US naval deployments, with a continuing requirement for the current COD's replacement to be able to deliver an entire crated aircraft engine if required..........the use of a V-22 Osprey COD aboard a LHD like the Wasp is a first in its own right.

per a Freedom of Information request, that failure was acknowledged by an internal Pentagon report that stated: "The event was not an operational test, though, in either a formal or informal sense of the term. Furthermore, it did not - and could not - demonstrate that the Block 2B F-35B is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation, or that it is ready for real-world operational deployments given the way the event was structured." And then just weeks later... somehow... the Marines gave it IOP designation - go figure, hey!

.

Well months later.......none the less, aircraft from a test group wouldn't be considered operational, versus an entire operational squadron...........I suppose we'll find out if the Marines are bull jiving when the next report comes out in the Spring....

"With flight testing of more complex software and advanced capabilities still ahead, additional technical discoveries during testing and subsequent design changes are likely. At the same time, the Department of Defense (DOD) plans to significantly increase production rates over the next 5 years. Increasing production while concurrently developing and testing creates risk and could result in additional cost growth and schedule delays."

With LRIP aircraft......versus full rate production in the 2020s.......

notwithstanding, of course, even at those lowest of low LockMart cost projections, without regard to increased costs associated with interoperability, the big ASSUME still reigns supreme... that the U.S. government (and the ever more impacting fiscally conservative Congress), in times of fiscal restraint and military cutbacks, will simply pony up, year over year, those billions upon billions of F-35 procurement dollars.

They will or they will loose capabilities without replacement for their armed forces.

Rue · December 4, 2015

www.gripen4canada.blogspot.ca

The above thread was written in support of the arguments for purchasing the JAS-39E/F Gripen fighter jet for Canada.

I believe it makes a great argument for why we should purchase this jet.

I believe we should purchase the majority of our air fleet with these craft allowing us many more craft and far cheaper maintenance expenses

plus the ability to recycle our old F18 arsenal into these jets.

It makes the most cents.

Big Guy · December 4, 2015

Speech from the Throne; ..."we will build a leaner and more agile military".

Say good bye to F-35 and large ships. Say hello to helicopters and Coast Guard vessels.

waldo · December 4, 2015

Speech from the Throne; ..."we will build a leaner and more agile military".

Say good bye to F-35 and large ships. Say hello to helicopters and Coast Guard vessels.

in keeping with exactly the same statements made as early as Sept 20th: Justin Trudeau vows to ditch F-35 in favour of ‘more affordable’ fighter jets and a ‘leaner’ military ... and yes, clearly, the 'flying F-35 butterball' is certainly not lean, not agile!

Justin Trudeau promised Sunday that a Liberal government would forgo the F-35 in favour of “more affordable” fighter jets, but Stephen Harper called it evidence the Liberals aren’t serious about keeping Canadians safe.

The Liberal leader announced plans for a “leaner, more agile, and better equipped” military that will operate under current National Defence spending plans, and pledged to replace the Conservative government’s “failed” Canada First Defence Strategy.

waldo · December 4, 2015

And no, I don't feel the IOC was propaganda, but proof of concept.......suggesting the the F-35B wasn't operational before it was declared operational is hardly a condemnation.....................

so... all those past posts of yours that highlighted a 'combat readiness' designation? Just proof of concept now? Do I really need to remind you how the LockMart media machine went into over-drive and had the mainstream media pumping out articles on that designation and that the "F-35 is finally ready"! Try a googly and see what comes back!

.

Derek 2.0 · December 4, 2015

so... all those past posts of yours that highlighted a 'combat readiness' designation? Just proof of concept now? Do I really need to remind you how the LockMart media machine went into over-drive and had the mainstream media pumping out articles on that designation and that the "F-35 is finally ready"! Try a googly and see what comes back!

.

I misspoke.......as I said before, the initial trials aboard the Wasp (the subject of the cited report), months prior to the declared IOC, were a proof of concept. The current operational squadron (VFMA-121) will be deployed to Japan permanently once the second West Coast squadron (currently VMA-311, to become VFMA-311) completes it transition (later next year) from Harriers to F-35Bs.........

Furthermore, USAF F-35As could be deployed overseas as early as next summer, once their first squadron declares its IOC.......

Any takers on a pool as to how many operational F-35 squadrons will be in service prior to Canada selecting a replacement?

waldo · December 4, 2015

I misspoke.......as I said before, the initial trials aboard the Wasp (the subject of the cited report), months prior to the declared IOC, were a proof of concept.

the date on that internal Pentagon report is July 22... IOC was declared July 31 and that sea-trial formed a significant component of that propaganda designation. Clearly the report was a "preemptive strike" against the forthcoming, days later, designation by the U.S. Marines.

.

Any takers on a pool as to how many operational F-35 squadrons will be in service prior to Canada selecting a replacement?

based on the farce seen with the F-35B IOC, I wouldn't expect anything less from the USAF given the influence LockMart holds over it.

.

Derek 2.0 · December 4, 2015

the date on that internal Pentagon report is July 22... IOC was declared July 31 and that sea-trial formed a significant component of that propaganda designation. Clearly the report was a "preemptive strike" against the forthcoming, days later, designation by the U.S. Marines.

.

.

Right, but said report encompasses said trials, conducted several months prior to the IOC.

based on the farce seen with the F-35B IOC, I wouldn't expect anything less from the USAF given the influence LockMart holds over it.

You base said assumption on what? Operating the less complex version, from an airbase in the sunbelt, with pose far less a learning curve.

waldo · December 4, 2015

Right, but said report encompasses said trials, conducted several months prior to the IOC.

conducted less than 2 months prior. But again, those sea-trials formed an integral part of the IOC designation... do you disagree? Per that internal Pentagon report those trials were not an operational success - far from it! Perhaps you can elaborate what so dramatically changed in less than 2 months to warrant that IOC rating designation. And again, that most critical internal Pentagon report is dated just days prior to the IOC designation - yes?

You base said assumption on what? Operating the less complex version, from an airbase in the sunbelt, with pose far less a learning curve.

and there you go! In the past when you've played both sides... where you try to take program credit for other variants or alternatively deflect criticism of other variants, I've asked you to qualify variant distinctions in terms of production processing, hardware, software, etc.. In the distant past I've put forward articles that speak to how integrated the respective variants are, but those got the ignore shuffle.

.

Wilber · December 4, 2015

Speech from the Throne; ..."we will build a leaner and more agile military".

Say good bye to F-35 and large ships. Say hello to helicopters and Coast Guard vessels.

The Coast Guard isn't military, it's part of Fisheries. That's why their helicopters don't do SAR in crappy conditions.

Derek 2.0 · December 5, 2015

conducted less than 2 months prior. But again, those sea-trials formed an integral part of the IOC designation... do you disagree? Per that internal Pentagon report those trials were not an operational success - far from it! Perhaps you can elaborate what so dramatically changed in less than 2 months to warrant that IOC rating designation. And again, that most critical internal Pentagon report is dated just days prior to the IOC designation - yes?

.

Without a doubt, as I said, a proof of concept, no different than when the USMC did a similar "stunt" over 40 years ago. The issues addressed in said report, for the most part, were logistical or maintenance related, bringing the entire squadron to full strength manning with the IOC would address many of said issues. Likewise, as they transition from the Harriers to F-35s aboard the LHDs, the unique (to the Harriers) support and logistical footprint will also transition to one intended to support the F-35, thus addressing the majority of the remainder.

and there you go! In the past when you've played both sides... where you try to take program credit for other variants or alternatively deflect criticism of other variants, I've asked you to qualify variant distinctions in terms of production processing, hardware, software, etc.. In the distant past I've put forward articles that speak to how integrated the respective variants are, but those got the ignore shuffle.

They are very integrated, but the F-35B (used by the Marines, British and Italians) is the most complex by its very nature being a "short take off vertical landing" (STOVL) aircraft......using a lift fan, in addition to a conventional engine:

F-35B_Joint_Strike_Fighter_(thrust_vecto

Making it, of the three versions, the most complex. In terms of complexity, the F-35B would then be followed by the F-35C (to be used by the USN), which will require strengthened landing gear/tailhook to take-off and land on aircraft carriers (additional avionics and a larger wing surface for landing at sea will also be required, but I'll spare you the babble)......

....leaving the F-35A, the version to be procured by the majority, operated from conventional airfields the least complex, and in turn, the cheapest to procure and support.

In terms of operating and maintaining an aircraft aboard a ship versus a land base, its night and day......shipboard operations will be restricted in space, movement of the ship (which effects the simplest of tasks), limited logistics and space to store spare parts, limited physical space to store the aircraft and a requirement to frequently bathe the aircraft in a mixture of freshwater and industrial strength WD40 (to prevent saltwater corrosion).

For the Marines, when contrasted with the USN, these restrictions are even further heightened by the size of vessels each operate from, with the Marines operating off of LHDs, which are roughly half the size of USN aircraft carrier, with a hanger space even further reduced proportionally to account for additional requirements of said ships (carrying Marines and their equipment).

Hence, most of the issues the Marines faced, operating the most complex version of the F-35, in the most restrictive of spaces, won't factor into the USAF's IOC next Summer.

waldo · December 5, 2015

Without a doubt, as I said, a proof of concept

They are very integrated

Hence, most of the issues the Marines faced, operating the most complex version of the F-35, in the most restrictive of spaces, won't factor into the USAF's IOC next Summer.

except, again, the IOC designation as used and as leverage by media heavily influenced by LockMart was anything but speaking of the F-35 as meeting a "proof of concept"! And you know this.

thanks for acknowledging the integration between variants... certainly wouldn't want to give the impression otherwise, right! But really, how droll! After all this time, with significant detailed discussions speaking to variant distinctions, you thought it necessary to reinforce STOVL? I provided a link to that internal Pentagon report, a 40+ page detailed accounting of how that sea-trial did not support an IOC designation... that it certainly did not meet operational combat readiness... what you somehow now refer to as "proof of concept"! :lol:

much of that report critical detail is not unique to a single variant; given you acknowledging the integration of variants as "very integrated"... I quite like the emphasis on key combat systems not even being present on the jets within the trial. Proof of concept, indeed!

Derek 2.0 · December 5, 2015

except, again, the IOC designation as used and as leverage by media heavily influenced by LockMart was anything but speaking of the F-35 as meeting a "proof of concept"! And you know this.

The IOC is but a reality, the F-35B squadron is an actual squadron, displacing legacy aircraft.......its not a LockMart parlor trick.

thanks for acknowledging the integration between variants... certainly wouldn't want to give the impression otherwise, right! But really, how droll! After all this time, with significant detailed discussions speaking to variant distinctions, you thought it necessary to reinforce STOVL? I provided a link to that internal Pentagon report, a 40+ page detailed accounting of how that sea-trial did not support an IOC designation... that it certainly did not meet operational combat readiness... what you somehow now refer to as "proof of concept"!

Sure, we're speaking to the recent IOC of the USMC's STOVL squadron of F-35's in combination to your cited report.....

much of that report critical detail is not unique to a single variant; given you acknowledging the integration of variants as "very integrated"... I quite like the emphasis on key combat systems not even being present on the jets within the trial. Proof of concept, indeed!

Such as? (The report, IIRC, also mentioned the gun pod not being deployed, the F-35 B & C use a gun pod, the F-35A has an internal gun that will be operational with the USAF's IOC next summer)

waldo · December 5, 2015

The IOC is but a reality, the F-35B squadron is an actual squadron, displacing legacy aircraft.......its not a LockMart parlor trick.

no - the reality is there is no foundation to use the failed sea-trial (as declared failed by that internal Pentagon report... only available through Freedom of Information request) to support the IOC designation. You yourself back-pedaled to declare the IOC as a 'proof of concept'. Since when does any U.S. military branch equate IOC to 'proof of concept'?

.

Derek 2.0 · December 5, 2015

no - the reality is there is no foundation to use the failed sea-trial (as declared failed by that internal Pentagon report... only available through Freedom of Information request) to support the IOC designation. You yourself back-pedaled to declare the IOC as a 'proof of concept'. Since when does any U.S. military branch equate IOC to 'proof of concept'?

.

I clearly mentioned my error, if your're going to play games I can't be bothered.