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

[bush_cheney2004]

...US is use to being under threat of attack cause lots of Americans are A-holes, comes with the territory to have a sidearm at ready.

I agree, as it is customary for Canada to have an American "sidearm" at the ready.

...Of course there were the days when Canada was a member of a defensive alliance called NATO, with no enemies other than gang bangers in third world countries. That all changed in 2001.

No, it happened way before that, with CF-18 bombings of Iraqis (1991) and Serbs (1999), as well as other military actions in eastern Europe. The general thinking was if Canadians are bombing you, then you probably "deserved" it.

Edited March 7, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Signals.Cpl]

best bang for the buck!!! Good to read we have another guy who gets all warm & fuzzy over a paper airplane... another guy with an open blank cheque waiting to sign-off on vapour-ware. 'Quality and abilities' of the aircraft? Really?

Yes, quality and abilities... look at your arguments and tell me you have proven that any of the other aircraft are equal to or better than the F35...let me save you the trouble and tell you that you have proven nothing because you are arguing against the aircraft for political reasons rather than technical reasons.

You mean... the propaganda machine?

The one you subscribe to? The one that says the F35 is bad because the conservatives want it?

Given full operational testing isn't slated to complete, most optimistically, until 2019, you're quite the advocate for JSFail/LockMart "promises", hey?

Because the promises will be met simple due to the fact that this fighter will be the backbone of the US Air Force... when we are talking about the US replacing most of their frontline fighters with F35's we can safely assume that it will meet the requirements now and when it is upgraded at midlife.

I mean, c'mon... why would you look at a failed decade+ history of 'exorbitant over costing, significant under delivery, and mega over-hype' - why would you do that, when you can so easily trivialize/marginalize challenge as being nothing more than politically partisan inspired criticism. Thanks for coming out!

Because in Canada it has been "politically partisan inspired criticism"... the whole position of the opposition here is that the price tag went from 15 billion to 40 billion even though the price itself did not increase but rather the things counted in to the equation which shocking as it may seem doesn't happen to other aircraft that people suggest.

waldo aren't you tired of loosing already? You get beaten with facts and you stick your fingers in your ears and hum to avoid admitting defeat... love your style of kindergarden argument...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The debate rages on...........I still don't like the aircraft and hope it is cancelled. We can't afford to buy a known hanger queen!

[Signals.Cpl]

The debate rages on...........I still don't like the aircraft and hope it is cancelled. We can't afford to buy a known hanger queen!

Can we afford to give up the capability to operate fighters and do a crash buildup in 20 years?

[GostHacked]

Money.........A mixed fleet, be it Hornets & Super Hornets, and eventually Super Hornets and F-35s is expensive......Hence why our current Hornets replaced several types.......

Well the Super Hornets are available now, the longer we wait for the F-35, the more expensive it will be. So when are the F-35s available for delivery? And it's easier to train our crews on a Super Hornet as they are already quite familiar with the Hornet. We don't need to have extensive training for the techs maintaining the craft as well. Oh and parts are readily available.

[segnosaur]

Well the Super Hornets are available now, the longer we wait for the F-35, the more expensive it will be.

Our current fleet of Hornets has already gone avionics upgrades, so we don't need to actually replace them now.

We will have to replace them in a few years (when the airframes will start to wear out), so we need to start the process of replacing them (even if we won't need delivery of new planes for a little while.)

So when are the F-35s available for delivery? And it's easier to train our crews on a Super Hornet as they are already quite familiar with the Hornet. We don't need to have extensive training for the techs maintaining the craft as well.

Not sure of all the details, but there may be more differences than you'd expect.

The Super Hornet isn't just a newer model of our existing CF-18 hornet. Instead, when the U.S. navy needed a new plane they decided to basically build a new plane but keep the F-18 name for political purposes. The design of the planes is similar (and many of the maintenance procedures will be the same), but there are differences...

- Different engines (GE-F404 in the CF-18, GE-F414 in the Superhornet)

- More hard points to carry weapons on the Superhornet

- Some differences in avionics

Oh and parts are readily available.

Yes they are. The question is, will the be available long term? Since there are only 2 users of the Super Hornet (and potentially dozens of users of the F35) its possible that the availability of spare parts will be an issue 3 decades from now.

I'm not necessarily against the Super Hornet.... I think it might be a viable replacement for our current fleet of planes. But its not necessarily a slam-dunk.

Advantages:

- Its a "known quantity"; i.e. less chance of surprise problems

- more speed/range

- Lower cost

Disadvantages:

- No stealth

- Lower service ceiling

- Less chance for Canada to negotiate local industrial side-benefits

- Fewer users might make future maintenance more expensive

- Lower maximum takeoff weight

Edited March 7, 2013 by segnosaur

[GostHacked]

Our current fleet of Hornets has already gone avionics upgrades, so we don't need to actually replace them now.

We will have to replace them in a few years (when the airframes will start to wear out), so we need to start the process of replacing them (even if we won't need delivery of new planes for a little while.)

Not sure of all the details, but there may be more differences than you'd expect.

So either we wait for an aircraft that may never get delivered, or we go ahead and buy something that is available now. That is too large of a gamble in my view, especially when talking about the amount of money involved.

The Super Hornet isn't just a newer model of our existing CF-18 hornet. Instead, when the U.S. navy needed a new plane they decided to basically build a new plane but keep the F-18 name for political purposes. The design of the planes is similar (and many of the maintenance procedures will be the same), but there are differences...

- Different engines (GE-F404 in the CF-18, GE-F414 in the Superhornet)

- More hard points to carry weapons on the Superhornet

- Some differences in avionics

There are enough similarities that will minimize training of technicians and pilots.

Yes they are. The question is, will the be available long term? Since there are only 2 users of the Super Hornet (and potentially dozens of users of the F35) its possible that the availability of spare parts will be an issue 3 decades from now.

Question is, will the F-35 EVER be available?

[segnosaur]

So either we wait for an aircraft that may never get delivered, or we go ahead and buy something that is available now. That is too large of a gamble in my view, especially when talking about the amount of money involved.

There are enough similarities that will minimize training of technicians and pilots.

Question is, will the F-35 EVER be available?

Well, there have been approximately 2 dozen F-35s delivered by Lochheed Martin so far, including both the A- and B- Variants, and includes planes shipped to both the U.S. and the U.K. Furthermore, the "production line" appears to now be operating at full speed.

So yes, I'm sure that the F-35 will be available.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-12-21/us-air-force-declares-f-35-wing-ready-train

Now, that doesn't mean there won't be some delays. And there are technical problems that still have to be dealt with... But I don't think anyone can ever claim "These will never be available". For better or worse, the project is just too far along for them to just give up.

[waldo]

Well, there have been approximately 2 dozen F-35s delivered by Lochheed Martin so far, including both the A- and B- Variants, and includes planes shipped to both the U.S. and the U.K. Furthermore, the "production line" appears to now be operating at full speed.

please, LRIP is not "production" production. More pointedly, the particular problem with the F-35 LRIP is that it's not ready for prime-time; that is to say, as echoed throughout all the major official U.S. GAO reviews/critiques of the program, concurrency remains a most critical facet of the program. Concurrency, as in building planes while critical testing remains outstanding, while key operational deficiencies remain outstanding. Not only must all these LRIP planes be retrofitted to some eventual "true production" capability, the outstanding testing deficiencies and un-addressed operational problems , in themselves, open the possibilities to ever more and cascading problems to come forward throughout the LRIP. On top of all this, we have member countries reducing and delaying their commitments to LRIP... on top of all this, we have the U.S. DOD formally announcing it's intentions to delay the LRIP production of some ~180 F-35s due to budgetary constraint (both direct budget and sequestration related constraint). Every cut, every delay within LRIP has implications to the greater whole - whether that greater whole is simply a more complete and representative accounting throughout the development cycle or one that recognizes the impact on overall timing of some "supposed" final production version of the F-35. Which will be when again??????

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2012-12-21/us-air-force-declares-f-35-wing-ready-train

in the context of my earlier references to the U.S. Pentagon DOT&E leaked report, this means little; rather, it means the USAF has accepted to lining up lockstep with the propaganda machine. Again, there is little value in training a plane that has such rigid constraints as to what capabilities are available and what the pilots are prohibited from even attempting. My earlier post fully qualified just what those prohibitions are... as reflected within the Pentagon DOT&E report.

[waldo]

Yes, quality and abilities... look at your arguments and tell me you have proven that any of the other aircraft are equal to or better than the F35...let me save you the trouble and tell you that you have proven nothing because you are arguing against the aircraft for political reasons rather than technical reasons.

wow! Your purely partisan angle had no merit the last time I responded... it has even less when you reinforce your F-35 cheer-leading is simple based on an unknown expectation of promises you've gleaned from the shiny brochures.

[waldo]

waldo aren't you tired of loosing already? You get beaten with facts and you stick your fingers in your ears and hum to avoid admitting defeat... love your style of kindergarden argument...

I never tire of your drive-by style, particularly when it comes with a typical vacuous offering of nothingness. By the by, I'm quite content to hold-up real world facts to your favoured imaginary equivalencies. Clearly, you're quite enamored with a decade+ history of F-35 failure - failure in terms of exorbitant cost increases, failure in terms of scheduled delivery, failure in terms of demonstrated capability matched against over-hyped propaganda.... ya, ya, your kind of facts, hey!

[bush_cheney2004]

please, LRIP is not "production" production.

No, this is false. Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) is a standard program phase for U.S. DoD weapons / platform procurements. I am confident in this having worked on many more such contracts than second guessers from outside the United States. The very essence of LRIP is to qualify production tooling, fixtures, design-to-production transition(s), supplier base, acceptance testing, etc. in lower quantities to bound risk (and costs). U.S. DoD has let contracts for LRIP 5 through LRIP 8 with long lead items funding.

Edited March 7, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

thanks scoop! And no, there's nothing, as you say, false in what I stated. I provided the necessary qualification that distinguishes the fact that LRIP, particularly early iterations, is not indicative of the final production phase/line. Given F-35 is only in iteration 5 (LRIP-5), of supposedly 11 iterations (although I'm reading suggestions that the member country and U.S. military delays/cut might force this out to an eventual 14 iterations), I offered this key qualifier, particularly for the glossy brochure readers who, purposely or not, talk of the F-35s being "in production"... as if it's full speed ahead, they're pumping em' out now like a GM auto assembly plant/line. Again... not "production" production - even you first guessers should appreciate that distinction, right? But hey now, as a first guesser, care to offer your cost estimate number on just how much it will cost the program (and ultimately the member countries and the respective branches of the U.S. military) to deal with the concurrency problem... to deal with retrofitting all those early LRIP planes to "real" production, from "LRIP production" production. You got a number... first guesser?

[bush_cheney2004]

thanks scoop! And no, there's nothing, as you say, false in what I stated. I provided the necessary qualification that distinguishes the fact that LRIP, particularly early iterations, is not indicative of the final production phase/line.

Thank you for clarifying your misleading statement about LRIP, which actually is "production". These kind of mistakes are quite understandable from outside the U.S. defense contractor environment and even the U.S. border.

Given F-35 is only in iteration 5 (LRIP-5), of supposedly 11 iterations (although I'm reading suggestions that the member country and U.S. military delays/cut might force this out to an eventual 14 iterations), I offered this key qualifier, particularly for the glossy brochure readers who, purposely or not, talk of the F-35s being "in production"...

Again, this is just more doubletalk from someone with no such experience with such things. Contractors compete fiercely for LRIP production contracts without any such qualifications. The subcontractor supplied engines, fasteners, avionics suite, or fuselage components do not know the difference either, as they are also in "production".

... to deal with retrofitting all those early LRIP planes to "real" production, from "LRIP production" production. You got a number... first guesser?

The LRIP aircraft have productution serial numbers just like those that will follow. They are not prototypes. Retrofitting production aircraft is expected during an airframe's type qualification and life cycle.....hell...Canada of all countries should know this given its history with first gen F/A-18's built under license.

[waldo]

Thank you for clarifying your misleading statement about LRIP, which actually is "production". These kind of mistakes are quite understandable from outside the U.S. defense contractor environment and even the U.S. border.

no - there was no misleading on my part... didn't you see my scary quotes around "production" production? First guesser, what else did you think I was offering qualification/distinction over? The only misleading is done by ne'er-do-well types who like to falsely present suggestion or imply that the F-35 is actually is a final configuration.

Again, this is just more doubletalk from someone with no such experience with such things. Contractors compete fiercely for LRIP production contracts without any such qualifications. The subcontractor supplied engines, fasteners, avionics suite, or fuselage components do not know the difference either, as they are also in "production".

what a silly comment. If you want to put the onus strictly on the contractors (which it isn't, obviously), under that fierce contractor competition you describe, how do contractors deal with the costs of concurrency? What's that you say... they add it to their bids, you say? Of course, it's not the contractors going before the Pentagon/DOD (ultimately the U.S. Congress), looking for ongoing iterative funding for those iterative LRIPs... is it? And what was your point again?

The LRIP aircraft have productution serial numbers just like those that will follow. They are not prototypes. Retrofitting production aircraft is expected during an airframe's type qualification and life cycle.

this has no bearing on what's being discussed here. Try to pay attention, hey?

[Guest Derek L]

entered service??? Pre-production aircraft... entered service!!!

last year? As in mid-November of last year? What else could a die-hard cheerleader, like you, do but take that official scathing leaked report from the Pentagon's DOT&E and trivialize it down to nothing more than a, "head rest" problem! Cheer on buddy, cheer on!

of course, that leaked detailed report was specifically scrutinizing the F-35A, Canada's targeted version, most particularly its 'Operational Utility Evaluation', under a training proviso. Since most of the critical review of JSFail invariably targets the 'B' and 'C' versions, seeing this critique of the 'A' version was quite revealing. But really, it's simply lower-level detail that reflects upon the official annual report from the Pentagon's DOT&E, the most recent 2012 report that came forward just a couple of months back in late January. Bottom line is the leaked report reinforces the current state of the F-35A... that even after a decade+, given the immaturity of the plane, training can only be undertaken under the most limiting constraints. For all intents and purposes there is no value to be realized in training at this point. More pointedly, the only real value is to fuel the program's/LockMart propaganda machine. Granted, there has been some progress made... the program has jumped 'leaps and bounds' beyond this fake, trumped up plane used by HarperConservatives for its staged F-35 "photo-ops"!

Low rate production aircraft........And yes, as stated in the document, the visibility constraints were attributed to the width of the headrest.

[Guest Derek L]

that part, hey? Well, go figure... one wonders why it's 'DoD sources' being quoted, rather tha contractor - Bombardier. I look forward to more than your personal say on this... you can back it up, right? It certainly would be quite revealing to see a contractor on the hook for ancillary costs separate from, but dictated by, the F-35 purchase. You speak with such authority - I'm sure you can back it up, right?

Right here:

http://www.nftc.net/nftc/en/flash/nftc.jsp

and here:

http://www.bombardier.ca/en/aerospace/services-and-solutions/customer-support-and-services/training-services/military-training?docID=0901260d8000dc09

Bombardier Military Aviation Training (MAT) Programs NATO Flying Training in Canada

The NATO Flying Training in Canada (NFTC) program is widely recognized as the world’s benchmark pilot training system. NFTC combines basic, advanced and fighter lead-in training to provide a comprehensive pilot training program.

NFTC is designed and operated in a military-industry partnership, with Bombardier serving as the training service integrator. NFTC is offered in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, and Cold Lake, Alberta, in Canada. NFTC's training air space covers over 700,000 kilometres.

Launched in 2000, NFTC allows you to forecast and manage fighter pilot training costs in one of the world’s best training environments. To date, participating countries include Canada, Denmark, the U.K., Singapore, Italy, Hungary, Austria and the United Arab Emirates.

Find out more about Bombardier’s NFTC program.

Advanced Distributed Combat Training System

Since 2004, Bombardier MAT has been training Canada's CF-18 pilots using state-of-the-art,cost-effective simulator training. To deliver the training, we designed and built state-of-the-art facilities at 3 Wing Bagotville, Québec, and 4 Wing Cold Lake, Alberta.

Six networked simulators link the two military bases, allowing participants to interact with one another and compete against real-life opponents. We also provide all instructional and support services.

For a fixed price……….with the current contract ending sometime in the early 2020s……….

And here is a report from several years back dealing with support contracts between BAE (Also F-35 partners) and Bombardier:

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_019832/canadian-hawk-support-contract?_afrLoop=253919671260000&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=null&baeSessionId=2ClyR5bdnN0TPk512hPt5xGKFMnclgysVqwkXTJyhbLQh62qQcq8!-45098293#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dnull%26baeSessionId%3D2ClyR5bdnN0TPk512hPt5xGKFMnclgysVqwkXTJyhbLQh62qQcq8%2521-45098293%26_afrLoop%3D253919671260000%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3D1bgci8uxm4_4

[Guest Derek L]

Well the Super Hornets are available now, the longer we wait for the F-35, the more expensive it will be. So when are the F-35s available for delivery? And it's easier to train our crews on a Super Hornet as they are already quite familiar with the Hornet. We don't need to have extensive training for the techs maintaining the craft as well. Oh and parts are readily available.

No, they (Hornet & Super Hornet) are completely separate aircraft, using completely separate engines……….And waiting for the F-35 doesn’t add to it’s price.

[Guest Derek L]

The LRIP aircraft have productution serial numbers just like those that will follow. They are not prototypes. Retrofitting production aircraft is expected during an airframe's type qualification and life cycle.....hell...Canada of all countries should know this given its history with first gen F/A-18's built under license.

One minor point.........Our Hornets were made in St. Louis like yours........We lost the capability to produce modern combat aircraft decades prior

[bush_cheney2004]

...this has no bearing on what's being discussed here. Try to pay attention, hey?

A pity indeed...it is unfortunate that the American experience with tactical aircraft procurements cannot have more relevance to this topic despite your strident attempts to make it so. F-35's are in production and are being delivered to paying customers.

http://tradegov.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/f-35-production-facility.jpg

Edited March 8, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

One minor point.........Our Hornets were made in St. Louis like yours........We lost the capability to produce modern combat aircraft decades prior

Roger that....Canada did build forward fuselage components and other sub assemblies as contract offsets. This is how military contract approvals are sweetened.

[Guest Derek L]

Roger that....Canada did build forward fuselage components and other sub assemblies as contract offsets. This is how military contract approvals are sweetened.

IIRC, part of the Industrial offset in the Hornet deal was for McDonnell Douglas to continue using P&W engines (made in Quebec) in their then upcoming MD-90..........

[waldo]

Low rate production aircraft........

yes, we've already dealt with how that LRIP designation is so casually and cavalierly bandied about... used quite matter-of-factly by F-35 cheer-leaders to imply the program is much, much, much farther along than it really and truly is.

And yes, as stated in the document, the visibility constraints were attributed to the width of the headrest.

no - the visibility constraints were attributed to four factors, only one of which is said to be quite readily dealt with; specifically: the canopy bow, the high-glare shield, the HMD cable... and the ejection seat headrest. Of those, the cable is described as the only 'easy fix'.

[waldo]

Right here:

and here:

For a fixed price……….with the current contract ending sometime in the early 2020s……….

absolute nonsense... there is nothing in what you've linked to that would position Bombadier to bring forward a complete new fleet of trainer jets to support the F-35. I quoted you a suggested price @$29 million per T2 Hawk unit... at that price, that's ~ a half billion dollars to bring in the same equivalent number to replace the current CT-155 trainer jets. Why how casually and cavalierly you spend Bombardier's money!

[waldo]

……….And waiting for the F-35 doesn’t add to it’s price.

cause... there's a contract? Oh wait, which day is this? Is this the day where you line up around HarperConservatives stating there was/is a contract... even though they (finally) admitted there is no such contract setting a fixed price having ever been signed. But really, if waiting (on the ever present, over ongoing, LockMart delays) doesn't raise the price of the F-35... just what is raising the price? Bloody hell, just a few posts back you linked to the DND/Canadian Forces annual F-35 report/status update that (now) suggests the F-35A unit fly-away cost is $87.4 million ($92 million Canadian at the established conversion rates within JSFail). Which, as I have now stated several times, isn't even reality. But I'll humour you: if, as you say, waiting doesn't add to the price, how did we ever get from the initial HarperConservative number of $65 million a plane... which later became $70 million... to this now stated $87/92 million number? What caused that change?