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

[waldo]

An F-35 B-model jet released the Guided Bomb Unit-12 (GBU-12) Paveway II bomb from its internal weapons bay while flying at around 25,000 feet, successfully smashing into a tank parked on the ground

A feat yet unmatched by Eurofighter, which still requires another legacy aircraft to “paint the target”

In essence, the Eurofighter when using the TIALD has to rely upon it’s onboard SatNav guidance system to aide in “targeting” guided bombs

Are you suggesting

perspective, please: you went out of your way to target Eurofighter... are you suggesting Eurofighter is a possible candidate... one of the grouping of selected candidates within this second go-around look for a Canadian CF-18 replacement? That's news to me. Is that what you're suggesting with your purposeful targeting?

notwithstanding you're speaking to a JSFail plane that isn't any where near fully developed/integrated... that won't be anywhere near a fully developed/integrated/retrofitted/tested capability, even optimistically for years, even to those targets/test results that have been reduced from initial target/test capability, are you still suggesting... are you still holding to your initial statement as quoted above..... i.e., your reference to the Eurofighter/Paveway II, "requiring another legacy fighter to paint the target"?

in any case, it's quite the double standard you're throwing out there... even if one accepts your/the suggested time line on Paveway enhancements (beyond Paveway II), even by your described/offered reference timelines, they would be available on the Eurofighter before any semblance of a fully developed/retrofitted/tested F-35 ever gets off the ground.

but again, why did you specifically target the Eurofighter, particularly as it's not spoken of as one of the possible replacements for the CF-18?

[Army Guy]

I must of missed something , was the euro fighter pulled from the bidding.

Five identified companies with aircraft in production—The Boeing Company, Dassault Aviation, EADS Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin and Saab Group—were previously sent a draft of the questionnaire on January 25, 2013, for comment

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=723489

[waldo]

... are you suggesting Eurofighter is a possible candidate... one of the grouping of selected candidates within this second go-around look for a Canadian CF-18 replacement?

I must of missed something , was the euro fighter pulled from the bidding.

it's been considered a 'token' candidate given it's high purchase & operational costs/capability... relative to the others... too insurmountable against any possible manufacturer/partner/purchase incentives.

[Guest Derek L]

perspective, please: you went out of your way to target Eurofighter... are you suggesting Eurofighter is a possible candidate... one of the grouping of selected candidates within this second go-around look for a Canadian CF-18 replacement? That's news to me. Is that what you're suggesting with your purposeful targeting?

The Eurofighter is a candidate in name only, and it’s attributes, both positive and negative, have made it a known quantity, through personal exchanges with the Luftwaffe and RAF, within the RCAF. The Eurofighter, like the Rafale and Gripen, would never be selected.

notwithstanding you're speaking to a JSFail plane that isn't any where near fully developed/integrated... that won't be anywhere near a fully developed/integrated/retrofitted/tested capability, even optimistically for years, even to those targets/test results that have been reduced from initial target/test capability, are you still suggesting... are you still holding to your initial statement as quoted above..... i.e., your reference to the Eurofighter/Paveway II, "requiring another legacy fighter to paint the target"?

in any case, it's quite the double standard you're throwing out there... even if one accepts your/the suggested time line on Paveway enhancements (beyond Paveway II), even by your described/offered reference timelines, they would be available on the Eurofighter before any semblance of a fully developed/retrofitted/tested F-35 ever gets off the ground.

Double standard? Not at all, the levels of participation of Canadian industry and defence ties alone preclude the viability of a Canadian Eurofighter (or Rafale….or Gripen…..or Russian/Chinese aircraft) purchase.

[Guest Derek L]

I must of missed something , was the euro fighter pulled from the bidding.

Five identified companies with aircraft in production—The Boeing Company, Dassault Aviation, EADS Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin and Saab Group—were previously sent a draft of the questionnaire on January 25, 2013, for comment

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-eng.do?nid=723489

The Saab Gripen has since been withdrawn.

[GostHacked]

The Saab Gripen has since been withdrawn.

It's too bad, the Grippens are a fine aircraft.

[Guest Derek L]

It's too bad, the Grippens are a fine aircraft.

I won’t chastise the intent of the Gripen for Swedish purposes, but like many of their military designs born out of the Cold War, their attributes are solely tailored to Swedish Defence needs. For the Gripen, it’s intended design was a lightweight aircraft intended to counter a vastly superior Soviet force, namely Red Army tanks and IFVs rolling across the border.

Ultimately it’s shorter range, current lack of integration of modern American weapons systems, smallish supply chain and unique radar preclude it from Canadian needs.

[bush_cheney2004]

I won’t chastise the intent of the Gripen for Swedish purposes,

No, not at all....a fine effort from such a small nation and industrial base. But the Gripen was never a serious contender, and this is not a fault, but more the delusional rantings of the "anything but F-35" crowd.

[Guest Derek L]

No, not at all....a fine effort from such a small nation and industrial base. But the Gripen was never a serious contender, and this is not a fault, but more the delusional rantings of the "anything but F-35" crowd.

Exactly.......We went down that route under PET and his Government’s selection of the Freedom Fighter (licensed built in Montreal ridings next to his own), a purchase in such numbers the RCAF had no use (or pilots) for all the aircraft, nor did the aircraft have a viable role until over a decade later as NATO northern flank reinforcements.

The Gripen itself might have been a suitable aircraft if we still had a requirement in West Germany to slow the Soviet Hordes entering the Fulda Gap……..I think it’s rough field attributes, namely the ability to operate from roads, would have put it at an advantage over the Hornets as per historic.

[Guest Derek L]

And more news relating to the program:

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/11/01/f-35-conducts-first-live-fire-launch-of-a-guided-air-to-air-missile/

The F-35 Lightning II executed its first live-fire launch of a guided air-to-air missile over a military test range off the California coast on Oct. 30.
The AIM-120 advanced medium range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM) was fired from an F-35A (AF-6) conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant fighter operating from the F-35 Integrated Test Facility at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

The test pilot, Air Force Captain Capt. Logan Lamping employed the AIM-120 radar-seeking missile from the F-35′s internal weapons bay against an aerial drone target in restricted military sea test range airspace. Test data and observers confirmed the F-35 identified and targeted the drone with its mission systems sensors, passed the target “track” information to the missile, and launched the AIM-120 from the aircraft to engage the target drone. After launch, the missile successfully acquired the target and followed an intercept flight profile. Moments before the missile was about to destroy the target, a self-destruct signal was sent to the AIM-120 in order to preserve the aerial drone for use in future tests.

Another important milestone (like the earlier news of LGB) to demonstrate the F-35 will be able to meet it’s planned IOC dates, ~ summer of 2015 for the USMC and summer of 2016 for the USAF, and starting 2017 for several of the partner nations.

[Guest Derek L]

And confirmation of the earlier link I provided on the Dutch’s F-35 future:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131107/DEFREG01/311070015/Dutch-Parliament-Clears-F-35-Purchase

WASHINGTON — The Dutch Parliament has ratified the government’s choice of the F-35 as the Netherlands next-generation fighter, putting an end to a 15-year debate.

The vote on whether the stealthy plane will replace the Dutch fleet of F-16s occurred the evening of Nov. 7.

“This is a very important moment in history: Finally we can give clarity to our military and to our international partners,” Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the Dutch minister of defense, said in a statement released by the government. “With this choice for the F-35, we provide the Dutch Armed Forces with the best aircraft available to deal with the challenges of our time and of the future.”

This leaves Canada and the Danes as the only JSF partner nations yet to concrete their purchases…….I still fully expect movement on our part by Spring/Summer of next year if we intend to maintain our scheduled replacement of our current Hornets.

[waldo]

And confirmation of the earlier link I provided on the Dutch’s F-35 future:

how much mileage are you squeezing out of this? It's as bad as the ongoing blatant LockMart marketing campaign to highlight the most, relatively speaking, minuscule of advances... while at the same time glossing over the real state of progress (vis-a-vis outstanding test points versus results, shifts back into more risk attached concurrency... itself a reflection of failing to meet schedules/targets, etc..).

in any case, perhaps you'll finally answer the same question I've thrown at you, many times over. In this Dutch case, (a decision simply tied to keeping a coalition government afloat), the procurement number is a much scaled back 37... scaled back from the initial program commitment of 85. So, again, are you prepared to offer-up a full program comparative accounting of committed purchases... inclusive of all branches of the U.S. military and JSF partner countries... a comparison that fully speaks to initial program commitments versus actual numbers. And, in relation to that comparison, are you prepared to honestly speak to your expectation this overall reduced procurement number will have on the overall program cost/schedules.

[Guest Derek L]

how much mileage are you squeezing out of this? It's as bad as the ongoing blatant LockMart marketing campaign to highlight the most, relatively speaking, minuscule of advances... while at the same time glossing over the real state of progress (vis-a-vis outstanding test points versus results, shifts back into more risk attached concurrency... itself a reflection of failing to meet schedules/targets, etc..).

Squeezing of mileage? Surely you jest, the anti-F-35 crowd is fast to report the most minor of issues with the program.

in any case, perhaps you'll finally answer the same question I've thrown at you, many times over. In this Dutch case, (a decision simply tied to keeping a coalition government afloat), the procurement number is a much scaled back 37... scaled back from the initial program commitment of 85. So, again, are you prepared to offer-up a full program comparative accounting of committed purchases... inclusive of all branches of the U.S. military and JSF partner countries... a comparison that fully speaks to initial program commitments versus actual numbers. And, in relation to that comparison, are you prepared to honestly speak to your expectation this overall reduced procurement number will have on the overall program cost/schedules.

As I said prior, the Dutch, like many Western nations since the global economic meltdown have been forced to make cuts, with the Dutch in particular, wholesale cuts to all of their services within their military……That is a reflection of a given nations economic health, not on the progress or cost of the F-35, fore if it were, they’d simply cancel their involvement with the program and select a “cheaper” option as branded about by the F-35’s critics.

Yet, cuts and all, the Dutch, like all other partner nations have yet to leave the program.

[Guest Derek L]

Indeed, if the House of Kim keeps up their mischief, we should see the South's plans speed up too....Perhaps the recent deployment from Whiteman wasn’t only a rattling sabre……but also an attempt for the South Korean air force to see the advantages of LO aircraft firsthand....

And in further news:

http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/nov/korea-f35-deal.cfm

Two sources familiar with the competition said today, that the country’s Joint Chiefs of Staff are expected to back an "all F-35 buy" of 40 F-35s and an option for 20 more at a meeting on November 22, dashing Boeing’s hopes of selling Seoul at least some F-15 fighters as a hedge against delays in the F-35 program, which is currently completing development.

The South Korean government voted down a bid by Boeing to supply 60 F-15 Silent Eagle’s in September, even though it was the only one of three bids submitted that was under budget.

At the time, South Korean officials said they would restart the 8.3tn won (£4.9bn) tender process to get a more advanced, radar-evading jet, but Boeing and its supporters had hoped the government would opt for a split buy of F-35s and F-15s.

"Clearly the US will be pleased with this direction," said one of the sources. "By committing to accept early production planes, (South) Korea will help bring down the price for early production aircraft purchased by the United States, Japan and others."

A 40 (+20) aircraft signing next week will be a further stride in cost reduction……Of course, I fully expect a crescendo of signings in the months to follow

[bush_cheney2004]

In other "stealth related" news:

The Aviationist reports that in March a U.S. MQ-1 drone came close to being intercepted by an Iranian F-4 Phantom combat plane, but the Iranian aircraft stopped short after a warning by an American pilot.

“He [the Raptor pilot] flew under their aircraft [the F-4s] to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there, and then pulled up on their left wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home,’” Gen. Welsh said.

Now Canada or any other nation can't buy F-22's, so it will buy the next best thing.

[Guest Derek L]

In other "stealth related" news:

The Aviationist reports that in March a U.S. MQ-1 drone came close to being intercepted by an Iranian F-4 Phantom combat plane, but the Iranian aircraft stopped short after a warning by an American pilot.

“He [the Raptor pilot] flew under their aircraft [the F-4s] to check out their weapons load without them knowing that he was there, and then pulled up on their left wing and then called them and said ‘you really ought to go home,’” Gen. Welsh said.

Now Canada or any other nation can't buy F-22's, so it will buy the next best thing.

Yeah, I heard that story a few months ago......priceless

[Guest Derek L]

And here you go:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/22/korea-fighter-lockheed-idUSL5N0J71DJ20131122

Nov 22 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp on Friday welcomed South Korea's plans to buy 40 F-35 fighter jets and said it still aimed to build a military communications satellite for Seoul and provide other technology transfers, despite a cut in the number of jets to be ordered.

Of course the critics will suggest the South Korean selection was merely appeasement of the American defence industry

[Guest Derek L]

Some further news:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/26/lockheed-fighter-korea-idUSL2N0JB24120131126

Nov 26 (Reuters) - South Korea's plan to buy 40 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 fighter jets will save the U.S. military about $2 billion by driving down the per-plane price of the new plane, and could create up to 10,000 U.S. jobs, according to sources familiar with the program.

Seoul's decision will also help to offset any move by the U.S. Air Force and Navy to deal with mandatory budget cuts by postponing orders for up to 54 jets over the next five years, according to analysts. Seoul's decision must still be approved by a committee chaired by its defense minister.

As will each additional order of the aircraft……

"The sale of F-35s to Japan and South Korea - America's two leading industrial allies in northeast Asia means the F-35 is now becoming the gold standard for tactical aircraft across the western Pacific," he said.

He said Singapore would likely follow suit with its own orders, followed by Malaysia and possibly New Zealand.

I fully expect Singapore to follow suit in the new year, Malaysia no motion until later this decade (2015+) to replace their small force of Mig-29s, Hornets and F-5 Tigers, which at one time was looking like they would go towards either the Gripen or PAK T-50......

As for the Kiwis, I highly doubt it, since they currently don't operate a fighter force and as far as I know, have no intentions of adding one.......With that said, with the global outlook changing and the emergence of China as a military heavyweight, coupled with the recently warmer relations with the Americans, I suppose a tiny purchase, tacked onto the Australian order, and including training and deep maintenance taking place in concert with the RAAF, wouldn’t be beyond the realm at some point “in the future”…….still wouldn’t bank on it near term.

Britain is expected to announce additional orders next month, and Turkey is likely to become the eighth foreign buyer in January when it is expected to place firm orders for two of the 100 jets it plans to buy over time.

Japan and Israel are expected to order more jets next year, the sources said, while Singapore and Belgium are also considering joining the program.

The above nations have been givens in my mind and no surprise, as for Belgium, based on their relationship with the Dutch air force, I fully expect them to join the F-35 family of nations.

U.S. government and industry officials also cite strong interest in the F-35 in the Gulf region, and say they have begun looking at when to release the jet to the region -- probably about five years after Israel gets its first jets in 2016.

From what I’ve come to understand, which is rather surprising (to me anyways) is that the F-35 will be made available to the UAE before Saudi Arabia……..

None the less more good news that further alienates the critics from reality……Oh and:

By 2019, the Pentagon projects the cost of each new F-35 fighter plane will be around $85 million, putting it on a par with the cost of current fighter planes, said Jim McAleese, a Virginia-based defense consultant.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Derek L

[eyeball]

Why would anyone want a plane that's probably going to be full of back-doors for the NSA's hackers to access?

[On Guard for Thee]

Why would anyone want a plane that's probably going to be full of back-doors for the NSA's hackers to access?

As well as ONE rather doubtful engine. A to your comment regarding the NSA. a we are hearing today, they don't need the back door. Harper welcomes them in the front.

[Guest Derek L]

Why would anyone want a plane that's probably going to be full of back-doors for the NSA's hackers to access?

There’s no probably about it…….All F-35’s will share a uniform source code controlled by the American’s DoD and Lockheed.

[Bonam]

There’s no probably about it…….All F-35’s will share a uniform source code controlled by the American’s DoD and Lockheed.

Except for the F-35I (Israeli version).

[Guest Derek L]

Except for the F-35I (Israeli version).

Modifications tailored to the individual end user won’t effect source code……The Israelis adding their own tailored ECM suites is no different then the British adding Storm Shadow to theirs, the Norwegians adding their own home-grown anti-ship missile to theirs, the eventual refinements the Japanese will do or the Americans having the sole (*cough* Israel *cough*) requirement of the users to equip tactical & battlefield nuclear weapons to their aircraft…etc.

[segnosaur]

Sorry for the late delay in posting this. (I have been too busy with other stuff to post around here, but thought a few things needed to be said...)

As for the numbers of F-35 required...well the Airforce seems to think that will be enough....i myself don't see how the math works out....if 80 F-18 were not enough to support a Afghan deployment, then i'm sure 65 F-35 will not be enough...that being said that is beyond my pay grade and is my best guess.

I think I might have an explanation.

The Canadian forces have begun a program to try to extend the life of the CF-18, by limiting some of the conditions they fly under, reducing their flying hours, and swapping them in and out of service. In addition, the age of the planes means more difficulty in maintenance, and less times the planes are available to fly.

From: http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo7/no2/roberds-eng.asp

When originally purchased, the CF-18 had a serviceability rate of 80 percent. Since it has passed its original 20-year life expectancy, there are problems arising that normally would not have been encountered in a projected service life. These problems often require parts that need to have special assembly lines established to produce parts for an obsolete aircraft. In no small measure due to the age of Canada’s Hornet fleet, the current unclassified serviceability rate is a little more than 50 percent.

So, while we may have roughly 80+ planes in our fleet, the number that we would have available for use at any one time (for air patrols, missions, training, etc.) is much less.

If/when we buy new planes (whether the F35 or some alternative that's currently in production) we will no longer need to baby them; we won't have to let some of the planes sit idle to extend their life time, And when things DO break, we will be able to obtain spare parts relatively quickly. So, of the proposed 65-plane fleet, a much higher number will be available at any one time (as compared to the CF18s).

[segnosaur]

start here: why does Canada need a 'strike-fighter'?

Ok, let me address that little issue:

First of all, it should be noted that every major national political party has, at one point or another supported the use of Canadian planes in international military actions.. The Liberals under Jean Chretien had the CF18s deployed during NATO missions in the Balkans, and the Conservatives deployed them in Libya; the Libyan deployment was also supported by the NDP. (Now, I don't know what the BQ, Green Party or Marijuana party thought of deploying our planes in those actions, but they are unlikely to be forming a government any time soon.)

Thus, even if you did not personally support such military deployments, there is probably an 80-90% chance that a party you voted for DID support such actions. And considering each of the parties has supported such actions, it would be incredibly hypocritical for a political party (or its hardcore supporters) to demand military action on one hand, while denying the military the tools it needs to carry out those actions.

Secondly, while the F35 is called a "strike fighter", a better term for it would be "multi-role" fighter. Even if Canada never ever deploys its fighter planes in a foreign country again, even if we become complete isolationists, we would still require some fighter, for even such basic jobs as preventing planes from going off course.

Remember, much of the discussion here has not just been about the abilities of the plane in combat; much of the discussion has been about costs. While you seem to be under the assumption that the F35 is "too expensive", there is plenty of evidence that over the long term its costs will not necessarily exceed that of the alternatives.

Our current fleet is decades past its original expected life time. As they get older the cost of maintaining them increases. They are not expected to be viable past around 2020, at which point metal fatigue will become an increasingly significant issue. Given the long lead time in procuring any sort of military hardware in Canada, steps must be taken YEARS in advance of any delivery.

Some "expert" suggestion exists that the initial 65 procurement number was low in terms of real need... other "expert" suggestion has another 12-15 required just to deal with attrition. You know, the attrition aspect/costs that Harper Conservatives/DND never talk about.

Yes, lets talk about attrition, shall we?

Now, I know you like to jump up and down, and drool over every piece of bad news about the F35. However, the fact is, despite repeated delays, despite cost overruns, and despite smaller initial orders from other countries, the F35 is going ahead, and it looks like it will be a main-stay fighter for many air forces for decades to come.

Whatever plane we purchase will suffer some degree of attrition.

What that means is that, in the future, if one of our F35s requires spare parts or replacement, we will likely be able to make purchases from a functioning assembly line.

On the other hand, consider one of its potential competitors, like the F18 Super Hornet. Currently it only has 2 users, and although some countries have expressed an interest in buying it, they do not have any firm orders, and the production line is slated to end in a couple of years.

From: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/17/airshow-dubai-boeing-fighter-idUSL2N0J20BA20131117

Boeing is scrambling to drum up additional orders for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler electronic attack plane before its production line is slated to end in 2016.

...

Boeing had good odds of winning a big Brazilian fighter competition, but that was derailed earlier this year after revelations of U.S. spying on President Dilma Rousseff. Malaysia, which was also considering the F/A-18, has postponed its fighter tender due to budget pressures, and talks about a possible order from Qatar are still in the early stages. And then last month, the U.S. Navy abruptly revoked a notice on a federal procurement website about a possible order of 36 F/A-18s or EA-18G electronic attack planes...

So, if we go with something like the Super Hornet, in 2 decades we may find ourselves in an even worse spot than we are now:

- No assembly line from which to buy spare parts and/or new planes. So, we would ether be forced to buy extra spare parts or planes NOW (thus negating any cost benefits for buying a cheaper plane), or we'd have to have the assembly lines restarted (which would be even pricier). Or, we could go to a "mixed fleet", but that also involves significant overhead.

- If and when any modifications are needed (e.g. to maintain communications capability with our allies, etc.), Canada would have to pay the complete development costs. On the other hand, if we purchase the F35 (which will have more global users), any development costs for upgrades can be divided among multiple countries.

So yes, Attrition is an issue that hasn't really been discussed. But like other issues, if attrition IS discussed, the F35 ends up looking even better than the alternatives.

Edited November 29, 2013 by segnosaur