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

[ReeferMadness]

And that is why the F-35 has passive sensors that don't give off emissions.

Passive sensors based on..... infrared. Do you think the F35 has the world's only IRST system?

Infrared detection is constrained by both distance and relative humidity........and of course, unlike legacy aircraft, the F-35 has the benefit of modern technology to help reduce its signature, including using its own fuel as a heat sink...unlike legacy aircraft.

Airborne infrared systems are limited to ~10km and can't target radar guided missiles........versus the F-35's DAS, ...

And yet, this link claims the Rafale has 100 km range and the typhoon 90 km. The Gripen NG supposedly has a range of BVR for IRST.

Low frequency radars can't target or guide missiles........full stop.

Tell that to the Serbs who brought down the F117 with obsolete missiles. They may not be very good ... yet. How long is the butterball supposed to fly and what makes you think they won't get better?

......well being able to target the aircraft's missiles in a 360* degree sphere around the aircraft, making the F-35 the first aircraft able to target other aircraft above, below and behind it:

So your premise is that good electronics can compensate for a horribly compromised air frame? How long is the air frame expected to last? And how long until the electronics are no longer superior to the competition? See the problem?

Have you considered the bloggers and handful of critics are wrong, and that despite marketing efforts by legacy aircraft makers, the F-35 partner nations might, just might, know what they're doing? No mater whose stock prices suffer?

I have. It's just that the butterball's detractors tell a much more convincing story than the people who have their jobs and financial worth on the line.

Engineering compromises forced on the F-35 by this unprecedented need for versatility have taken their toll on the new jet’s performance. Largely because of the wide vertical-takeoff fan the Marines demanded, the JSF is wide, heavy and has high drag, and is neither as quick as an F-16 nor as toughly constructed as an A-10. The jack-of-all-trades JSF has become the master of none.

[Wilber]

Passive sensors based on..... infrared. Do you think the F35 has the world's only IRST system?

Not like the F-35's.

The exception to the scanning technique is the F-35 JSF's DAS, which stares in all directions simultaneously, and automatically detects and declares aircraft and missiles in all directions, without a limit to the number of targets simultaneously tracked.

And yet, this link claims the Rafale has 100 km range and the typhoon 90 km. The Gripen NG supposedly has a range of BVR for IRST.

It also says.

The range at which a target can be sufficiently confidently identified to decide on weapon release is significantly inferior to the detection range - manufacturers have claimed it is about 65% of detection range.

[Derek 2.0]

Passive sensors based on..... infrared. Do you think the F35 has the world's only IRST system?

........on infrared and optical sensors.

And yet, this link claims the Rafale has 100 km range and the typhoon 90 km. The Gripen NG supposedly has a range of BVR for IRST.

On a clear day with next to no humidity........and of course, doesn't have the ability to engage said target at said range.......because IR missiles (like the sidewinder) don't have such ranges.

Tell that to the Serbs who brought down the F117 with obsolete missiles. They may not be very good ... yet. How long is the butterball supposed to fly and what makes you think they won't get better?

No need, since said SAM had an IR seeker head, and the Serbs placed all their launchers along the narrow corridor that NATO was using to enter and exit the country.

So your premise is that good electronics can compensate for a horribly compromised air frame? How long is the air frame expected to last? And how long until the electronics are no longer superior to the competition? See the problem?

Any aircraft with fly-by-wire is a "compromised air frame". The air frame itself will last as long as comparable aircraft, dependent on use, but the electronics will be continually upgraded through software versus legacy types that receive costly mid life upgrades.

I have. It's just that the butterball's detractors tell a much more convincing story than the people who have their jobs and financial worth on the line.

But you couldn't be getting a line from forced fed my makers of other aircraft with their jobs and financial worth on the line.......have you considered with the Gripen NG, since you speak to it so much, that there are currently more F-35s flying then there are orders by the Swedes and Brazilians for the Gripen NG?

Or that without future orders, Boeing will be shutting down it St Louis plant that produces the Super Hornet and Eagle?

Or the French military, because of delays (like decades) resulting in massive price increases can't afford to continue to produce the Rafale without outside orders?

And maybe, just maybe, a handful of bloggers and historic critics of any military spending don't know a fraction of what is known about the program by numerous air forces and renowned aerospace giants?

Do you think the Russians and Chinese, both also relying on export orders, would market their products as decades less capable? Inversely, if Stealth were dead, why are the Russians and Chinese attempting to develop their own stealth aircraft?

Edited December 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

Not like the F-35's.

Exactly, and said technology is hardly groundbreaking........the F-14 Tomcat was one of the first major users of such systems, used operationally for decades, and the limitations of such systems are well known.......and funny enough, the Tomcat's IRST system was produced by Lockheed, that has been making such systems for decades..........one would think, if IRST was a viable long range sensor, somebody would have produced a matching long-range missile......like the Phoenix missile used on the F-14........

[ReeferMadness]

I've never maintained stealth makes anything invisible, but it does give a major advantage. Radar is line of sight as is infrared. The closer an aircraft can get to a target without being detected, the bigger advantage it has. Also, the moment a ground radar lights up, it becomes a target, that's what ARM's are for. Chaff is not very effective against Doppler radars. Electronically, the F-35 is huge step forward and a completely different animal compared to contemporary fighters, that is a big reason it is taking so long to develop.

It's much more than just stealth.

Wow, thanks for posting the marketing material. What, no glossy brochure?

You said "Well I know what will happen when a non stealth fighter meets a steal fighter. It won't." As I've pointed out, stealth is no panacea. And the reason the butterball is so slow, cumbersome and has such a small stealth weapons load isn't just because it's stealth, it's also because they're insisting on using the same basic design for STOVL for the marines.

[waldo]

Have you considered the bloggers and handful of critics are wrong, and that despite marketing efforts by legacy aircraft makers, the F-35 partner nations might, just might, know what they're doing? No mater whose stock prices suffer?

sure, sure... that's why Australia is reviewing their decision to purchase... that's why U.S. Senator McCain just comes out days ago and calls for a review on the overall production numbers while questioning capabilities... that's why Singapore just pushed back on their decision by opting for a an almost $1billion upgrade to their F-16s. You say, "just might know what they're doing"!

[waldo]

Have you considered the bloggers and handful of critics are wrong, and that despite marketing efforts by legacy aircraft makers, the F-35 partner nations might, just might, know what they're doing? No mater whose stock prices suffer?

bloggers and handful critics? Well... there's always Gen. Michael Hostage, the Air Component Commander for U.S. Central Command:

Canada's multi-billion dollar F-35s ‘irrelevant’ without U.S.-only F-22 as support, American general says

Gen. Michael Hostage, head of air combat command in the U.S., said the F-35 is critical for the future of that country’s air force. But in an interview with the Air Force Times, published in February, Hostage pointed out the F-35 needs to work hand-in-hand with the F-22.

“The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform,” Hostage said. “It needs the F-22.

”The U.S. Air Force is upgrading the F-22, which officers see as essential. Without the upgraded F-22s, “the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant,” Hostage said.

how many F-22s will Canada be buying?

.

[Derek 2.0]

sure, sure... that's why Australia is reviewing their decision to purchase...

You mean the Green Party.....backed by ALP coming up into an election, with current Government favoring a smaller submarine purchase (built in a Labor bastion).

that's why U.S. Senator McCain just comes out days ago and calls for a review on the overall production numbers while questioning capabilities

Boeing Mesa

that's why Singapore just pushed back on their decision by opting for a an almost $1billion upgrade to their F-16s. You say, "just might know what they're doing"!

"Push back"? Odd, since the RSAF will replace their far older F-5s with the F-35 first........upgrading their current F-16s is simply a reflection of their close relationship with the USAF, and their desire to keep their fleet current.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

bloggers and handful critics? Well... there's always Gen. Michael Hostage, the Air Component Commander for U.S. Central Command:

Apples to oranges.......

how many F-22s will Canada be buying?

.

Enough to replace our current F-15C fleet

[waldo]

You mean the Green Party.....backed by ALP coming up into an election, with current Government favoring a smaller submarine purchase (built in a Labor bastion).

ya, ya... the Australian Opposition Labour and Green parties, with enough votes to carry the motion... have put in place a review of the F-35 program state/participation level. Like I said, if everything was running so smoothly with over-riding certainty and no doubts there wouldn't be a forthcoming review.

.

Boeing Mesa

sure, sure... it's quite easy for you to dismiss questions surrounding the F-35 delays and the ability for the U.S. to actually pay for the F-35 over the next decade... so easy for you to suggest McCain is playing a Boeing card. Of course, when he's come out in the past so supportive of the F-35, what card is he playing there? If you don't like the McCain reference try that statement from USMC General Dunford, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff who indicated the Pentagon is re-evaluating the F-35 numbers... is that also a Boeing card being played there?

.

"Push back"? Odd, since the RSAF will replace their far older F-5s with the F-35 first........upgrading their current F-16s is simply a reflection of their close relationship with the USAF, and their desire to keep their fleet current.

no - the magnitude of that upgrade is a direct reflection on the F-35 delay... and price.

.

[Derek 2.0]

ya, ya... the Australian Opposition Labour and Green parties, with enough votes to carry the motion... have put in place a review of the F-35 program state/participation level. Like I said, if everything was running so smoothly with over-riding certainty and no doubts there wouldn't be a forthcoming review.

A review of a second F-35 purchase to meet the Australians long range strike requirement........a requirement that the ALP feels should be submarines (with cruise missiles) built in ALP ridings.

If you don't like the McCain reference try that statement from USMC General Dunford, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff who indicated the Pentagon is re-evaluating the F-35 numbers... is that also a Boeing card being played there?

Context Waldo:

"With all programs going forward, the [fiscal year 2017] budget process, every program is going to be reviewed," he said. "Obviously, the budget situation here in Washington will have a big impact on that, but there is nothing at this point to indicate any formal review of this number. But there will be the standard budget review of all programs going forward to FY 17."

no - the magnitude of that upgrade is a direct reflection on the F-35 delay... and price.

Not at all, its simply dovetailing on the USAF's F-16 fleet upgrade, a fleet that the RSAF is fully integrated with:

Hence why a RSAF 425 squadron F-16 has a Luke AFB tail code.......Luke AFB being in Arizona, not Singapore......funny enough, Luke AFB also has another growing tenant......

And as I said, the RSAF will be/has been replacing their far older F-5 fleet, procured in the 1970s vice their F-16 fleet obtained in the late 80s through the 90s........

Edited December 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[waldo]

A review of a second F-35 purchase to meet the Australians long range strike requirement........a requirement that the ALP feels should be submarines (with cruise missiles) built in ALP ridings.

no - the review is not just for evaluating a second purchase... in line with the now-delayed release of their defense white paper, my understanding is that the review will be all encompassing looking back at the complete history of the program participation, how certain decisions have been made, and whether to continue to that same level as initially projected upon. And again, short of a few F-35s being built for Australia, nothing else has been contracted/funded. Even if one chose to accept "your spin" about submarines, that simply shows Australia, like Canada, has to manage revisions to it's full complement of military branches, not just the air force... only so many dollars available for military upgrades.

.

Context Waldo:

the first paragraph of your stated context speaks to exactly what I quoted... to exactly what the U.S. Joint Chief stated about a Pentagon review on the F-35 numbers... clearly, your follow-up article is handling the fallout from what he stated. We've seen many examples of this over the years where a high-level member of the U.S. military has stated something... and then it gets walked back as in 'white-washed over'.

.

Not at all, its simply dovetailing on the USAF's F-16 fleet upgrade, a fleet that the RSAF is fully integrated with:

no - again, if the F-35 was on schedule, on price and showing the hyped capabilities always trotted out, Singapore most definitely would not have chosen to upgrade their complete fleet of F-16s to that extent.

.

[Derek 2.0]

no - the review is not just for evaluating a second purchase... in line with the now-delayed release of their defense white paper, my understanding is that the review will be all encompassing looking back at the complete history of the program participation, how certain decisions have been made, and whether to continue to that same level as initially projected upon.

.

Waldo, the ALP supports (when in Government bought the initial aircraft) the F-35 program:

Labor defence spokesman Stephen Conroy said the opposition's support for the inquiry did not suggest it didn't support Australia's participation in the JSF project.

Conroy even visited the production line in Forth Worth several months ago

Even if one chose to accept "your spin" about submarines, that simply shows Australia, like Canada, has to manage revisions to it's full complement of military branches, not just the air force... only so many dollars available for military upgrades.

There is no spin, this is direct relation to the previous Liberal MND that suggested the shipbuilder (ASC) couldn't "build a canoe", which resulted in ALP picking up a traditionally Liberal seat (Fisher), which propelled the South Australian ALP government from minority to majority status. Since then, there is speculation that the federal Liberals will reduce and build the new subs overseas, which was the previous federal ALP government's preferred option to fill the future long range strike requirement.......

your follow-up article is handling the fallout from what he stated. We've seen many examples of this over the years where a high-level member of the U.S. military has stated something... and then it gets walked back as in 'white-washed over'.

White washed or reality, in that all defense programs receive an annual spending review.........

no - again, if the F-35 was on schedule, on price and showing the hyped capabilities always trotted out, Singapore most definitely would not have chosen to upgrade their complete fleet of F-16s to that extent.

No, the RSAF replaced their 1960s era A-4 Skyhawks and a portion of their 1970s F-5 fleet, with F-15s a decade ago, the remainder of their F-5 fleet is to be replaced with the F-35B, as their F-16s would have little utility going forward with their navies LHD program.......their F-16s, some less than 20 years old (contrasted with our 30+ year old Hornets), have a decades+ life left in them (easily) and their replacement shouldn't be expected until the late 2020s or early 2030s.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[waldo]

Waldo, the ALP supports (when in Government bought the initial aircraft) the F-35 program

There is no spin

so what! Things change... in this case, the Australian Labour party was a part of the vote calling for a comprehensive review of the total program... which wouldn't be called for if there were no concerns. There is considerable spin by you. You can't have it both ways - you can't presume to suggest there are no concerns over the F-35 cost/delays/capabilities and then proceed to discount the intended Navy upgrades as simply partisanship being played out by the Labour party. Again, apparently, fiscal concerns are significant, are key in determining just how Australia proceeds... the Australian government can't upgrade all branches of the military to the levels previously put forward... just as in Canada!

.

White washed or reality, in that all defense programs receive an annual spending review.........

I gave you 2 instances, significantly media profiled, one from U.S. Senator McCain, the other from the U.S. Joint Chief... both instances were speaking to a review of the F-35 numbers and not in the context of, as you say, "an annual spending review". Rather, the review suggestions were in a long-term context... would the Pentagon require as many F-35s as initially projected and/or would the required funding of $12-to-$15 billion per year, for the next immediate years and the full 20s decade be forthcoming?

.

.......their F-16s, some less than 20 years old (contrasted with our 30+ year old Hornets), have a decades+ life left in them (easily) and their replacement shouldn't be expected until the late 2020s or early 2030s.

no - "Work on the contract will be performed at the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics facility in Fort Worth Texas, and is expected to be completed by June 2023". Again, clearly if there was confidence in the F-35 being there... on cost, on time, on capability... Singapore wouldn't just go out and spend almost $1 billion to upgrade their complete fleet of 62 F-16s.

[Derek 2.0]

so what! Things change... in this case, the Australian Labour party was a part of the vote calling for a comprehensive review of the total program... which wouldn't be called for if there were no concerns. There is considerable spin by you.

The ALP's defence critic's response was in regards to the ALP's Senate vote in support of the Green motion.......

You can't have it both ways - you can't presume to suggest there are no concerns over the F-35 cost/delays/capabilities and then proceed to discount the intended Navy upgrades as simply partisanship being played out by the Labour party. Again, apparently, fiscal concerns are significant, are key in determining just how Australia proceeds... the Australian government can't upgrade all branches of the military to the levels previously put forward... just as in Canada!

The debate (in Australia) isn't over being able to upgrade all the branches of their military, of that both the Liberal and ALP are in agreement (and continuity of said programs between changes of Governments is a historic given), the debate is over an expansion of capability for a current requirement.......be it additional F-35s (STOVL) in addition to extensive refits to two recently commissioned vessels (Canberra class LHD), doubling the submarine fleet well adding cruise missiles or adding a cruise missile capability to their ANZAC frigate replacement program..........hence the direction of the next White Paper, going into an election year.............The replacement of the RAAF's hornets with F-35s isn't up for debate, as the program has been fully supported by the Liberals and ALP well both in Government.

I gave you 2 instances, significantly media profiled, one from U.S. Senator McCain, the other from the U.S. Joint Chief... both instances were speaking to a review of the F-35 numbers and not in the context of, as you say, "an annual spending review". Rather, the review suggestions were in a long-term context... would the Pentagon require as many F-35s as initially projected and/or would the required funding of $12-to-$15 billion per year, for the next immediate years and the full 20s decade be forthcoming?

And I gave you the official response for the Obama administration Pentagon, all programs will be under review in the lead up to the 2016/17 budget.

no - "Work on the contract will be performed at the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics facility in Fort Worth Texas, and isexpected to be completed by June 2023". Again, clearly if there was confidence in the F-35 being there... on cost, on time, on capability... Singapore wouldn't just go out and spend almost $1 billion to upgrade their complete fleet of 62 F-16s.

Singapore's continual upgrade of the F-16 fleet is but a truism of any operator of modern fighters, no different than our extensive upgrade to our Hornets a decade ago (or the current program for the Americans F-16 fleet), which is reflective of the requirement for a mid-life upgrade to maintain a current fighter fleet...........based on the RSAF's F-16 fleet's age, there is no indication they intended to replace them anytime soon.........

As said, our Hornet IMP program, started in 2001 (lasting through the decade) was no indication, then, that we didn't intend to replace our Hornets.....

[bush_cheney2004]

....And I gave you the official response for the Obama administration Pentagon, all programs will be under review in the lead up to the 2016/17 budget.

Agreed...as in "programs"...plural...concurrent procurement of multiple platforms for the Pentagon...something that Canada can't/won't do. It is inconceivable for Canada to buy Super Hornets and F-35's, unlike tinier Australia. By definition, Canada is chained to a binary approach and process.

[waldo]

no - new defense budget appropriations in Australia for 2016 are operational focused intended to cover the costs of existing military deployments in the Middle East. Stated reasons for the defense white paper delay are to adjust prioritization in the face of ever increasing costs. Ever increasing concerns over activity within the South China Sea has calls for a greater emphasis on navy ship/submarine building... that it be prioritized.

as for Singapore and their $1Billion decision to upgrade F-16s, you said their existing life span before the upgrades was into the late 2020s, early 2030s. I provided you a link that stated the upgrades would be completed by 2023... why would Singapore upgrade when the planes have, according to you, another decade+ left within them? Your unsubstantiated statements are noted.

and, again... you simply choose to dismiss the relatively recent calls for F-35 numbers review from both U.S. Senator John McCain and the U.S. Joint Chief. Here's another... breaking news - how will you dismiss this one?

Budget '17: Pentagon Planning Cuts in Production, R&D --- Dec 6, 2015

Over the past week, two top Pentagon officials, Comptroller Mike McCord and Frank Kendall, undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, made it clear that to make up an expected $15 billion delta between what the congressional budget deal gave the department and what the Pentagon planned on having will require targeting the equipment, and not personnel, side of the budget.

Then on Dec. 2, Kendall warned that "the disproportionate hits on '17 are going to be on modernization. I think that will probably be more on production than R&D."

Asked after his speech if production of the F-35 joint strike fighter could be slowed down, Kendall indicated it was likely. "The F-35 is not — it is impossible in this budget to entirely protect it, just put it that way," Kendall responded.

[Keepitsimple]

Canada's new Liberal government will act within weeks to fulfill a campaign promise to withdraw six fighter jets that have been attacking Islamic State positions in Iraq and Syria, a top official said on Monday.

.........................

Diplomatic sources say the United States, France and Britain have privately expressed their unease about Canada's pledge on the grounds it could undermine the effort to contain Islamic State.

The Liberals of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took office after defeating the Conservatives, who took the decision to send the jets and trainers to the Middle East.

In Parliament on Monday, the Conservatives noted that when U.S. President Barack Obama on Sunday cited close allies who were taking part in the operations against Islamic State, he had not mentioned Canada.

Link: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-withdraw-jets-fighting-islamic-state-within-weeks-233548384.html

[Smallc]

I don't agree with the promise, but he made it. He's also giving our allies time to replace us. He could have pulled out immediately. He didn't.

[Big Guy]

If Chretien would have listened to allies we would have got involved in that original fiasco in Iraq. Canada stood its ground and saved hundreds of Canadian lives. Because others are making mistakes does not mean we have to follow.

[capricorn]

I don't agree with the promise, but he made it.

Yup. Let Trudeau Jr. and his Liberals have their way. We already know he's too stubborn to amend his "promises" in light of new information or circumstances.

[Smallc]

Yup. Let Trudeau Jr. and his Liberals have their way. We already know he's too stubborn to amend his "promises" in light of new information or circumstances.

He promised (verbally) to bring in 25,000 government sponsored refugees by December 31st - because of public concern, he moved the date and acquiesced to those who said he should take more time to ensure things are done right - seems responsive.

He promised to end the F-18 bombing mission. Because of circumstances around the world and in order to accommodate our allies, he stretched the timeline into at least December now (over a month). He also seems to be prepared to leave our ISR and AAR aircraft in theatre to assist our allies - seems responsive.

I think some of you that were willing to give Harper a lot of rope are far too willing to hang Trudeau with it.

[bush_cheney2004]

...I think some of you that were willing to give Harper a lot of rope are far too willing to hang Trudeau with it.

As Trudeau was more than happy to use refugees and deployed Canadian Forces for political gain, he (and his supporters) should be willing to accept such obvious criticisms.

[Smallc]

As Trudeau was more than happy to use refugees and deployed Canadian Forces for political gain, he (and his supporters) should be willing to accept such obvious criticisms.

I am not in agreement with bringing home the fighter jets. I do understand that it was a promise that he made, and was elected on.

Criticism is fine. It won't go un-countered when it's unreasonable.

[On Guard for Thee]

Most upper level military people realize you won't stop ISIL with a F 18. It does keep a few of the boys and girls busy, but not effective.