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

waldo · December 20, 2015

There was nothing bold about it, the final French aircraft are to be delivered Spring-Summer 2016, absent new orders, the line will/would close..........

nonsense! The French military has the Rafale being delivered on through to 2019... notwithstanding Egypt's purchase and suggested additional purchases of the Rafale... all separate from the recent India and Qatar purchases.

.

You realize next Year's LRIP production of the F-35 is over 60 aircraft, in addition, the DoD has bought 11 additional F-35s, more than expected? (and the flyaway cost of the F-35A is now $98 million per?)

and... that additional funding sees more Hornet Growlers and Super Hornets being purchased than F-35s... things that make you go 'hmmmmm'! Perhaps a dose of reality... reality that lines up with those 4 other posted references of political and high-level military personnel either calling for review of the extended program (not just a single year budgetary focus) or speaking to "budgetary constraints/challenges"... you know, the ones you so summarily dismissed! A dose of reality from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO):

F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER ---Assessment Needed to Address Affordability Challenges

I did ask you to offer comment on the historical shift/change in procurement numbers... but you didn't bite. This graphic from the latest U.S. GAO report offers real perspective on the delays and shifting numbers relative to iterative procurement plans. Of course, as most of the key/critical/highly technical testing is still to be done, I expect there will shortly be yet another revision coming forward:

as for that described affordability challenge:

As of December 2014, the program office estimated that the total acquisition cost of the F-35 will be $391.1 billion, or $7.4 billion less than DOD reported in December 2013. Our analysis indicates that the program will require an average of $12.4 billion per year, which represents around one-quarter of DOD’s annual funding for major defense acquisition programs over the next 5 years. From fiscal years 2015 to 2019, DOD plans to increase annual 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, while competing with other large programs for limited acquisition resources. This funding reflects the U. S. military services’ plans to significantly increase annual aircraft procurement buys from 38 in 2015 to 90 in 2019. International partners will also increase procurement buys during this time, and the combined purchases will peak at 179 aircraft in 2021, with the United States purchasing 100 aircraft and the international partners purchasing an additional 79 aircraft. DOD projects that the program’s acquisition funding needs will increase to around $14 billion in 2022. Funding needs will remain between $14 and $15 billion for nearly a decade and peak at $15.1 billion in 2029 (see figure 4). Given resource limitations and the funding needs of other major acquisition programs such as the KC-46A tanker, the DDG-51 Class Destroyer, the Ohio Class submarine replacement, and a long-range strike bomber, in addition to the high estimated costs of sustaining the fleet over the next several years, we believe funding of this magnitude will pose significant affordability challenges.

and, uhhh... care to share an official source designating the F-35A flyaway cost at $98 million... and is that with or without an engine? :lol:

.

Derek 2.0 · December 20, 2015

surely you're not equating the Sukhoi SU-35s to... a Mig-29... surely! Gee, I read the SU-35s is a match for... if not better than... the F-15 today.

.

No, I'm equating Russian aircraft to Western designs. To the SU-35 versus F-15, the limiting factor for the Russian aircraft is still radar/avionics/weapons. Though it might be the F-15's peer in terms of raw performance, the F-15 still will have superior radar/avionics/weapons then the Russian aircraft..........maybe a peer for the earlier F-15A, but doubtful for the more modern types.

I dropped the 'P' word just to get a reaction from you... just to reinforce you really likee a certain type of propaganda - that coming from LockMart/JSF Program Office! Whatever the actual state of that 2017 production entry into the Russian Air Force for the PAK FA T-50... isn't it odd that all critical and/or speculative writing on it has it being compared to the F-22 and not the F-35 - oh my!

Not the slightest bit odd, as said Russian types, like the F-15 and F-22 (and Eurofighter), are high performance air superiority types versus a multirole type like the F-35, Rafale, Gripen NG, Super Hornet, Falcon etc.

Derek 2.0 · December 20, 2015

nonsense! The French military has the Rafale being delivered on through to 2019... notwithstanding Egypt's purchase and suggested additional purchases of the Rafale... all separate from the recent India and Qatar purchases.

.

Not since, several years ago, the French Government announced a reduction in their planned buy absent outside orders.

and... that additional funding sees more Hornet Growlers and Super Hornets being purchased than F-35s... things that make you go 'hmmmmm'! Perhaps a dose of reality... reality that lines up with those 4 other posted references of political and high-level military personnel either calling for review of the extended program (not just a single year budgetary focus) or speaking to "budgetary constraints/challenges"... you know, the ones you so summarily dismissed! A dose of reality from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO):

As cited in the other thread, the Blue Angels are to receive the Super Hornet........additional attrition Growlers, a finite resource in any military, make sense if the funding is there.

I did ask you to offer comment on the historical shift/change in procurement numbers... but you didn't bite. This graphic from the latest U.S. GAO report offers real perspective on the delays and shifting numbers relative to iterative procurement plans. Of course, as most of the key/critical/highly technical testing is still to be done, I expect there will shortly be yet another revision coming forward:

I have offered comment in several threads, the report is now dated in several aspects, namely in its mention of the Ohio SSBN replacement, which will be ring fenced outside the standard procurement budget, and as mentioned, the probability of the next generation bomber receiving the same treatment.........from the recent budget request above, the DDG purchase has been confirmed and added to.

and, uhhh... care to share an official source designating the F-35A flyaway cost at $98 million... and is that with or without an engine?

The two previous links which I provided with the breakdown on the additional F-35 purchases.

Derek 2.0 · December 20, 2015

Maybe that explains how MD won the contract to build U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighters for a nation that has no carriers !

http://thefundingportal.com/blog/industrial-and-regional-benefits-overhauled-after-28-years/

Seemed the way forward for the USAF's F-4 Phantom.......and every other user of one of the most prolific fighters ever produced.

PIK · December 20, 2015

Canadian soldiers helped by the RCAF, in battle. Now we have a government that says go into battle but someone lese planes will have to help. But did any one notice his Def minister saying how he would have loved to have the air cover in Afghanistan. His job will be on the line. Trudeau better start listening to his military advisors. Very close to being treasonous.

bush_cheney2004 · December 20, 2015

Seemed the way forward for the USAF's F-4 Phantom.......and every other user of one of the most prolific fighters ever produced.

Maybe Canada bought U.S. Navy strike fighters designed to take harsh marine environments and hard landings because they had to last over 40 years.

Derek 2.0 · December 20, 2015

Maybe Canada bought U.S. Navy strike fighters designed to take harsh marine environments and hard landings because they had to last over 40 years.

Was that a consideration in the USAF's purchase of the F-4 Phantom, an aircraft designed for the USN? It would seem dozens of nations, including the United States, have, for decades, purchased McDonnell Douglas naval aircraft and adopted them for use from land bases......Are you suggesting this was in error? :huh:

bush_cheney2004 · December 20, 2015

.....Are you suggesting this was in error?

No, the F-15 Eagle would suggest that was an error.

Derek 2.0 · December 20, 2015

No, the F-15 Eagle would suggest that was an error.

You consider the decades long service of the F-4 Phantom with the USAF an error? :huh:

Did the engineers at McDonnell Douglas envision the Eagle to operate for 40+ years in USAF service, a similar expected service of our McDonnell Douglas Hornets?

capricorn · December 20, 2015

Canadian soldiers helped by the RCAF, in battle. Now we have a government that says go into battle but someone lese planes will have to help.

I suspect that you find this government's military policy very confusing, as I do. Here's what Stephane Dion, Minister of Foreign Affairs had to say.

the men and women on the ground in the region are not there to engage in combat.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2411926/stephane-dion-soldiers-not-in-iraq-to-fight/

He should tell that to the faces of our soldiers on the ground when they were forced to resort to combat maneuvers in order to survive an attack.

Trudeau Jr. might do well to appoint one spokesperson, in addition to himself, mandated to address the media and Canadians on this matter, preferably the Minister of National Defence.

bush_cheney2004 · December 20, 2015

You consider the decades long service of the F-4 Phantom with the USAF an error?

No, it was a McNamara "Whiz Kids" directive to the USAF. Early J79 fitted aircraft announced their arrival over 20 miles away.

Did the engineers at McDonnell Douglas envision the Eagle to operate for 40+ years in USAF service, a similar expected service of our McDonnell Douglas Hornets?

No, as early variants have already been retired. F-15 platform remained in production well into this century.

bush_cheney2004 · December 20, 2015

...Trudeau Jr. might do well to appoint one spokesperson, in addition to himself, mandated to address the media and Canadians on this matter, preferably the Minister of National Defence.

Do you mean someone like Gen. Rick Hillier, who was more than happy to educate Canadians about the reality of such matters ?

capricorn · December 20, 2015

Do you mean someone like Gen. Rick Hillier, who was more than happy to educate Canadians about the reality of such matters ?

The comments and analysis from such experts as Hillier are more than welcome and in many ways essential. As you say, he adds a dose of reality to Trudeau's "feel good" pronouncements.

Derek 2.0 · December 20, 2015

No, it was a McNamara "Whiz Kids" directive to the USAF. Early J79 fitted aircraft announced their arrival over 20 miles away.

No as in it wasn't an error? The J79 aside, early Soviet radars were capable of announcing said arrival at a far greater distance, hence the USAF's introduction of the Wild Weasel variant of the F-4, which served into the 90s, including the First Gulf War.........that would suggest, combined with the F-4E being the mainstay of NATO through the 70s and early 80s, that the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, designed for the USN, proved a level of success for users that operated them from land bases........in actual fact, the Phantom had a far longer service life with land based users, then operating from carriers by the USN, USMC and RN FAA........

No, as early variants have already been retired. F-15 platform remained in production well into this century.

The F-15A, procured in the early 70s, was only retired several years ago by the ANG......a near ~40 year service life....the current mainstay of the USAF, the F-15C, was procured in the late 70s through the early 80s (slightly older than our Hornet force) and is expected to serve into the 2030s........wouldn't that equate to a near 50 year service life?

bush_cheney2004 · December 20, 2015

...in actual fact, the Phantom had a far longer service life with land based users, then operating from carriers by the USN, USMC and RN FAA........

Which was my original, salient point. Operating naval strike fighters from dry shelters on land and not brutalizing the stabilizers or landing gear with steam catapult launches and traps tends to make them last longer.

The F-15A, procured in the early 70s, was only retired several years ago by the ANG......a near ~40 year service life....the current mainstay of the USAF, the F-15C, was procured in the late 70s through the early 80s (slightly older than our Hornet force) and is expected to serve into the 2030s........wouldn't that equate to a near 50 year service life?

Yes, but the B-52 has that beat by decades. Difference being that the USAF has procured several, newer air superiority and bomber platforms concurrent with F-15 and older types in service, something that does not really apply to Canada.

Does Canada have the equivalent of an ANG ?

Smallc · December 20, 2015

The comments and analysis from such experts as Hillier are more than welcome and in many ways essential. As you say, he adds a dose of reality to Trudeau's "feel good" pronouncements.

Oh really? How do you feel about his statements on refugees?

WestCoastRunner · December 20, 2015

Trudeau Jr. might do well to appoint one spokesperson, in addition to himself, mandated to address the media and Canadians on this matter, preferably the Minister of National Defence.

Why do you address him as Trudeau Jr. Just say Trudeau. He's the only living Trudeau PM we have.

Derek 2.0 · December 20, 2015

Which was my original, salient point. Operating naval strike fighters from dry shelters on land and not brutalizing the stabilizers or landing gear with steam catapult launches and traps tends to make them last longer.

Sure, I couldn't agree more, but said point doesn't explain our Hornets expected service life, versus for example, the USMC, which still uses the F/A-18A/B Hornets (same vintage as ours) in a maritime environment.

Yes, but the B-52 has that beat by decades. Difference being that the USAF has procured several, newer air superiority and bomber platforms concurrent with F-15 and older types in service, something that does not really apply to Canada.

The B-52 and modern fighter aircraft are apples to oranges.......The B-52H is only now halfway through its expected structural life, with the "weakest link" being the leading edges of the upper portion of the wing, which "only" have an expected life of ~38-40000 hrs, the B-52H fleet is currently sitting at ~20000 hrs on average........

That doesn't change the fact that USAF still operates the F-15C, which has seen fleet wide groundings associated with fatigue (unlike our Hornet fleet) and is expected to still be in service through the 2030s.

Does Canada have the equivalent of an ANG ?

No, but then the F-15C is still the mainstay of frontline units in the USAF......and will be far longer than our Hornets are in service.

capricorn · December 20, 2015

Oh really? How do you feel about his statements on refugees?

Hillier is an expert on military matters. I don't concern myself with his views about refugees as that is not his area of expertise.

bush_cheney2004 · December 20, 2015

No, but then the F-15C is still the mainstay of frontline units in the USAF......and will be far longer than our Hornets are in service.

The F-15C is no longer the USAF's mainstay for air superiority. At this rate, nobody has any idea how long CF-18 Hornets will remain in service.

Discussions about the United States' and other foreign procurements is sexy fun, but ultimately is just filler for a Canadian process that is ill defined and subject to change with the wind.

Derek 2.0 · December 20, 2015

The F-15C is no longer the USAF's mainstay for air superiority. At this rate, nobody has any idea how long CF-18 Hornets will remain in service.

How many F-15s are in service versus the F-22? F-15s of the same vintage of our Hornets.

Discussions about the United States' and other foreign procurements is sexy fun, but ultimately is just filler for a Canadian process that is ill defined and subject to change with the wind.

Didn't you bring up the prospect of US Naval aircraft in Canadian service? By subject to the wind, do you mean the same kind of difficulties associated with the replacement of the F-15C by the F-22, which will lead to an aircraft of the same vintage as our Hornets serving far longer?

jacee · December 20, 2015

/un-security-council-agree-resolution-on-syrian-peace-process

Anybody hopeful about this?

.

bush_cheney2004 · December 20, 2015

How many F-15s are in service versus the F-22? F-15s of the same vintage of our Hornets.

There are more F-15s as far more were produced, and platform variants were produced continuously compared to CF-18s.

Didn't you bring up the prospect of US Naval aircraft in Canadian service? By subject to the wind, do you mean the same kind of difficulties associated with the replacement of the F-15C by the F-22, which will lead to an aircraft of the same vintage as our Hornets serving far longer?

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. We can accurately point to chapter and verse for every American service/procurement schedule and cost, but that is something that challenges this thread about replacement CF-18s.

Substitute "combat ships" or "rotary winged aircraft"...same results.

WestCoastRunner · December 20, 2015

/un-security-council-agree-resolution-on-syrian-peace-process

Anybody hopeful about this?

.

I bet Assad is already negotiating with other countries for safe asylum for his family. What intrigues me is his wife and how she feels about all this. Is she a captive in his household or a willing participant? But I digress.

Derek 2.0 · December 20, 2015

There are more F-15s as far more were produced, and platform variants were produced continuously compared to CF-18s.

Sure, but the USAF isn't replacing their current F-15Cs, procured in the later 70s and early 80s, until the ~2030s, at which point, they would have had a longer service life than our Hornets.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant. We can accurately point to chapter and verse for every American service/procurement schedule and cost, but that is something that challenges this thread about replacement CF-18s.

Sure.

Substitute "combat ships" or "rotary winged aircraft"...same results.

It would seem difficulties faced by the Canadian Forces are mirrored with the US military (granted on a far larger scale), but then your only complaint is that said Canadian difficulties receive less in depth coverage and open source information?