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

[DogOnPorch]

Yep...they made blistering fast QF-106 target drones as well, serving proudly to the bitter end.

That they did. As they did with many remaining B-17s and such...

QF-106 kaput!

The 106, as you well know, was the last of the Century series and the last American aircraft built for a single role. Its job, of course, was exactly that of the Arrow...complete with the nuclear tipped Genie. The 105, however, is still by far my favorite of the group...made to do Mach 1 on the deck at sea level. Quite the ride, apparently, if you've ever read 'Thud Ridge, 'Route Pack 6' or a few others. The Thud, it turned out, made a passable fighter in a pinch...a duel role machine, I suppose.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The 105, however, is still by far my favorite of the group...made to do Mach 1 on the deck at sea level.

Understandable, as the CF-105 would/could have been a fine interceptor. But that's the rub...it never got to dance in the big show. The F-4 Phantom II danced its ass off for over 30 years, with over 5,000 built. It is still flying...somewhere.

Edited December 28, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Understandable, as the CF-105 would/could have been a fine interceptor. But that's the rub...it never got to dance in the big show. The F-4 Phantom II danced its ass off for over 30 years, with over 5,000 built. It is still flying...somewhere.

The F-4 II is still the best plane ever made in most folk's opinion. Its drawback, a dark smokey plume at military power. But, hey...if the Commies saw that they probably had two or three Sparrows chasing them.

The F-106 did CAP duty over SVN's airfields just in case NVN's Il-28s flew south...never needed. The CF-105 was really a redundant design. When it came to buying one of the Centuries, we went with the two least suitable for Canada...oddly. I guess the 104s were more for Europe...but the 101's were an odd ball. Even the USAF hated them. A strange ungainly beast like the UK's Buccaneer.

IL-28 Beagle

Edited December 28, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

The F-4 II is still the best plane ever made in most folk's opinion. Its drawback, a dark smokey plume at military power. But, hey...if the Commies saw that they probably had two or three Sparrows chasing them.

The F-106 did CAP duty over SVN's airfields just in case NVN's Il-28s flew south...never needed. The CF-105 was really a redundant design. When it came to buying one of the Centuries, we went with the two least suitable for Canada...oddly. I guess the 104s were more for Europe...but the 101's were an odd ball. Even the USAF hated them. A strange ungainly beast like the UK's Buccaneer.

The Voodoos were far from an odd-ball selection for the RCAF......They had a WSO and more importantly, at the time, the only viable interceptor incorporated into SAGE.

edit to add: And the USAF didn't "hate them", they just had the Phantom under development.....

Edited December 28, 2013 by Derek L

[DogOnPorch]

The Voodoos were far from an odd-ball selection for the RCAF......They had a WSO and more importantly, at the time, the only viable interceptor incorporated into SAGE.

Meh...the F-4 would have suited us much, much better. It was a truly dangerous aircraft for the time. Also an interceptor...amongst its many hats worn.

[Guest Derek L]

Meh...the F-4 would have suited us much, much better. It was a truly dangerous aircraft for the time. Also an interceptor...amongst its many hats worn.

At the time, the F-4 was being solely delivered to the Americans, wasn’t incorporated into SAGE and we didn’t have the money……At best, we’d have been operating the CF-100 in front line service into the later 60s before we got a sniff of a Phantom.

[DogOnPorch]

At the time, the F-4 was being solely delivered to the Americans, wasn’t incorporated into SAGE and we didn’t have the money……At best, we’d have been operating the CF-100 in front line service into the later 60s before we got a sniff of a Phantom.

Where there's a will...

[Guest Derek L]

Where there's a will...

Didn't help any of the other historic Phantom operators.......Canada operating F-4Cs prior to ~1968 is a fallacy.

[waldo]

guys, guys... you have a dedicated thread (several actually) set aside for you to get your game on! This thread is dedicated to the JSFail F-35.

thanks in advance - carry on!

[On Guard for Thee]

guys, guys... you have a dedicated thread (several actually) set aside for you to get your game on! This thread is dedicated to the JSFail F-35.

thanks in advance - carry on!

And I wonder if there are any pilots in that crowd?

[DogOnPorch]

Didn't help any of the other historic Phantom operators.......Canada operating F-4Cs prior to ~1968 is a fallacy.

And yet, Canada was the only country to be afflicted with the F-101. Even the US ditched it at the first opportunity. Most others managed the F-4 once it wasn't just a Navy machine. But, as I mentioned, where there's a will, there's a way. We didn't have to scrap our carrier(s). We didn't have to become a third or fourth rate military that Belgium could take out if the weather held. We could have been an actual NATO power.

guys, guys... you have a dedicated thread (several actually) set aside for you to get your game on! This thread is dedicated to the JSFail F-35.

thanks in advance - carry on!

Grow up. If you don't see the irony of Derek defending the F-101 over the much better F-4 you really are out to lunch. But, then, you don't know the difference. Doh!

[waldo]

guys, guys... you have a dedicated thread (several actually) set aside for you to get your game on! This thread is dedicated to the JSFail F-35.

thanks in advance - carry on!

Grow up. If you don't see the irony of Derek defending the F-101 over the much better F-4 you really are out to lunch. But, then, you don't know the difference. Doh!

and how many threads have been trashed/scuttled because of your incessant need to post unrelated pics & off-topic/unrelated diversions? As I said, you have several dedicated threads to choose from... why... one of them is even your own "Your Favorite Aircraft" thread.

again, this thread is intended for discussion related to the JSFail F-35

.

[bush_cheney2004]

....again, this thread is intended for discussion related to the JSFail F-35

Wrong forum area....Canada doesn't have any F-35's. Has the F-35 ever flown in Canadian air space ?

Edited December 28, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Stop the thread drift. Stay on topic.

Anybody who continues to hijack this thread will take an extended vacation from the forums.

Ch. A.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm fairly certain that Canada's past aircraft purchases are 'on topic' in a thread about Canada's next aircraft purchase.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm fairly certain that Canada's past aircraft purchases are 'on topic' in a thread about Canada's next aircraft purchase.

Seems logical to me, but what do I know ?

Here is a list of Canadian military aircraft, and a lot of them came from U.S. contractors, as will the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Air_Force

[waldo]

I'm fairly certain that Canada's past aircraft purchases are 'on topic' in a thread about Canada's next aircraft purchase.

then you should be providing correlation points for related discussion; correlation points that link your stated "past aircraft purchases" to... the/a possible F-35 procurement. Instead, you simply derail and distract from the thread's focused intent. And, again, there are (other) dedicated threads available for you to post your non-relevant interests.

[bush_cheney2004]

Those who know anything about tactical aircraft would readily see such correlations...even lay persons can see such basic F-35 relationships and historical procurement circle jerk that revolves around cost, labour contracts, mission, defense, and "having a seat at the table".

We've already seen this movie, and we know how it is going to end.

[waldo]

then you should be providing correlation points for related discussion; correlation points that link your stated "past aircraft purchases" to... the/a possible F-35 procurement. Instead, you simply derail and distract from the thread's focused intent. And, again, there are (other) dedicated threads available for you to post your non-relevant interests.

guys, guys... let the waldo show you how correlation and thread discussion relevancy is maintained. Watch and learn... watch and learn!

of course, per plane costing is never far from the LockMart/military propaganda thrust. Recently, there's been another ramp-up to attempt to claim "progress is being made" in both reducing anticipated full production acquisition costs along with associated operational/support flying costs... be they costs the respective U.S. military branches are expected to pay, or JSF partner nations. One recent attempt had the U.S. Marines come forward to dispel raised concerns over operational/support costing for the STOVL F-35B variant. Of course, given the state any of the F-35 variants are in, the U.S. Marines lack any semblance of real operational reference data to allow it to presume to legitimately claim expectations of reduced operational/support costs. The next best thing available to actual measurable data... rather, the only thing available... was for the U.S. Marines to state a changed intention on just how it planned to use the F-35B and, in turn, legitimize the costs associated with purchasing some 340 F-35B planes.

and the U.S. Marines ability to project reduced operational/support costs comes down to the U.S. Marines changing the fundamental requirements premise; i.e., in an August 2013 interview with Reuters, Lieutenant General Robert Schmidle, deputy Marine Corps commandant for aviation, stated the U.S. Marines only intended to fly the F-35B in STOVL mode 10% of its flying time... 10% only... down from the 80% rate associated with requirements definition and the rate factored into initial operational/support cost estimates. Magic! Simply change the intended use and requirements statement!

now... stay with me guys... stay with me - remember, correlation is key! It seems more serious scrutiny on the real F-35B capabilities, rather, lack of capabilities, is coming forward. If the U.S. Marines own intended use shift wasn't enough to call into question the need for 340 F-35B planes, this functional capability scrutiny is clearly raising visibility on just what the U.S. Marines have... and will need. Now, as MLW member 'Derek L' so clearly stated in response to the earlier scathing Rand report I put forward, one of the planes intended to be replaced by the F-35 was the USAF's A-10... of course, this was initially tied to a more realistic (albeit still presumptuous) date of 2028 for full replacement of the A-10. Setting aside whether or not the F-35A USAF intended variant will actually have any real ability to supplant the A-10, the USAF helped its initial justification for the F-35A by claiming the A-10 will eventually be replaced by the F-35A. And then... along comes sequestration coupled with overall intense scrutiny by U.S. lawmakers on allotting available funding for defense procurements. Scrutiny to the point the USAF brings forward it's FY2015 budget with stated intentions to, "consider early retiring the entire A-10 Thunderbolt II fleet and other single-mission aircraft to prioritize multi-mission aircraft and keep future procurements on track".

almost there guys, almost there... C O R R E L A T I O N! Now, clearly, wags are coming out of the woodwork and looking at the U.S. Marines shift in usage intent for the F-35B, looking at the real capabilities of the A-10 as they align with just what the U.S. Marines actually need, looking at the stated USAF budgetary consideration to early retire the A-10 fleet, looking at the realities of available U.S. defense funding... and suggesting logical moves like:

- the U.S. Marines shifting the F-35B procurement intent down to a reduced 100 number (down from the initial 340 commitment), and

- the USAF transferring 200 of the latest upgraded A-10s to the U.S. Marines in support of the Marines CAS (Close Air Support) requirements.

see... that's how correlation is done guys. Of course, it actually takes an effort to keep abreast of JSFail and related events/critical review. It presumes on doing more than just your continued posting of unrelated pics and dropping of unrelated one-liners. It presumes on actually keeping to the threads intent rather than purposely distracting/derailing it.

[bush_cheney2004]

America has all the "jets" it wants...Canada fights over the minimum "jets" it needs. Here is a simple but fun argument:

[Guest Derek L]

And yet, Canada was the only country to be afflicted with the F-101. Even the US ditched it at the first opportunity. Most others managed the F-4 once it wasn't just a Navy machine. But, as I mentioned, where there's a will, there's a way. We didn't have to scrap our carrier(s). We didn't have to become a third or fourth rate military that Belgium could take out if the weather held. We could have been an actual NATO power.

The USAF didn’t “ditch it” until the 70s, with several ANG units were still using it, like Canada, into the early 80s…….This is no ill reflection on the Phantom itself, but the fact, like I mentioned prior, that F-4 production was spoken for……..

As I said, at the earliest, the RCAF wouldn’t have received it’s first F-4C until the late 60s, with the completion of said order sometime in the early 70s……..hence requiring the RCAF to either operate CF-100s and Sabres into the 70s, and of course this was determined unacceptable all the way back in 59 by RCAF leadership when looking at the Phantom, or purchase an available in-term aircraft(s) (as historic) with the gradual replacement of said aircraft in the early 70s (not accomplished by the PET governments selection of the CF-5).

This would be akin today deferring the Hornet replacement for some yet unnamed UCAV and/or 6th generation manned aircraft as opposed to purchasing the F-35.

Grow up. If you don't see the irony of Derek defending the F-101 over the much better F-4 you really are out to lunch. But, then, you don't know the difference. Doh!

I attribute my defence as reality as opposed to flights of fancy……..back then selecting aircraft that were both suitable and obtainable for both our NORAD and NATO nuclear strike roles, just as today, the F-35 being suitable to meet the RCAF’s current and deemed future requirements.

[Guest Derek L]

And I wonder if there are any pilots in that crowd?

I can’t speak for the others, but I’m just shy of 4k hrs in 206s, A-Stars, UH-1Ds/Ns/204s/205s/210s/212s, CH-124/SH3s, CH-46s and will be cutting my teeth this spring on Bell 429s……..combined with nearly 24 years service in the RCAF, made up of both regular and reserve time, and was formerly employed by Boeing IDS and Bell Textron.

[bush_cheney2004]

....As I said, at the earliest, the RCAF wouldn’t have received it’s first F-4C until the late 60s, with the completion of said order sometime in the early 70s……..hence requiring the RCAF to either operate CF-100s and Sabres into the 70s, and of course this was determined unacceptable all the way back in 59 by RCAF leadership when looking at the Phantom, or purchase an available in-term aircraft(s) (as historic) with the gradual replacement of said aircraft in the early 70s (not accomplished by the PET governments selection of the CF-5).

Gosh....that sure sounds complicated and frustrating. Why not just buy them all !

This would be akin today deferring the Hornet replacement for some yet unnamed UCAV and/or 6th generation manned aircraft as opposed to purchasing the F-35.

No worries there, as Canada is definitely going to buy the F-35 in quantities yet to be determined.

[Guest Derek L]

Gosh....that sure sounds complicated and frustrating. Why not just buy them all !

50+ years ago, as I’m sure you’re aware, Canadian military procurement was just as political as it is today……..Historically speaking, cancelling the Arrow in favour of maintaining the rest of the military and in turn purchasing the Voodoo/BOMARC combo, like you guys, was the right choice…….the initial wavering towards the nuke tipped Genies and CM-10s was typically Canadian…..but I digress..

As to our NATO instant sunshine obligation and the selection of the CF-104 lawndart, at the time, Lockheed (like itself and Boeing today)had a much greater influence in the Canadian aerospace industry then Fairchild Republic….and of course, the Thunderchief cost a heck of lot of money….

Ultimately, if one is to attempt to correct past errors in procurement of the Government of Canada at the behest of the RCAF, we “should have” with hindsight, cancelled the Arrow and purchased the Voodoo as historic for NORAD, then renegotiated our nuclear strike commitment for NATO into a CAS and tactical FEBA nuclear strike role and built under licence (with a more then willing Douglas) A-4s for both the RCAF in Germany and the RCN……..

Later, as the NATO Northern flank commitment became reality in the late 60s and early 70s, there then would have been no need for a new major purchase for NATO/Europe with the Skyhawk in hand (and with a Light Fleet Carrier loaded with A-4s, we might have actually been able to get Forces to Norway if the balloon went up), so in turn less budgetary pressure and making feasible the replacement of our Voodoos (~75 aircraft) for NORAD with the F-4E in the early 70s…..

To further play this though experiment out, circa early 80s as the A-4 fleet is showing it’s age, and now with no requirement for the massive Hornet purchase, we purchase two squadrons for the RCAF and one for the RCN of Harriers (~ 50-60 aircraft)…..and of course look to replacing our Light Fleet with a “Through Deck Cruiser” for our NATO North Atlantic commitment

Once the Cold War ends and the Defence Cuts of the 90s come into play, we retire 1/3rd of our Phantoms and replace the remainder with a Super-Bug (~40-50 aircraft) for NORAD and reorganise the Harrier force into a Joint-Harrier force (ala RAF & RN) of 24-30 operational aircraft (with the remainder paying heed to a sizeable attrition reserve), leaving us a modern, versatile (and affordable) force structure today…….

…..to be replaced with a small purchase of F-35Bs (circa current timeframe later this decade) and allowing us to replace the Super Hornets with either an F-35A or 6th generation aircraft in the 2030s……Ultimately maintaining a modern force, sans expensive mid-life SLEPs and block obsolescence which in turn leads to massive one-off, boom or bust, purchases…….Like we face today……moderation and gradualism are good things…..

No worries there, as Canada is definitely going to buy the F-35 in quantities yet to be determined.

I've no doubt.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Derek L

[bush_cheney2004]

...Ultimately, if one is to attempt to correct past errors in procurement of the Government of Canada at the behest of the RCAF, we “should have” with hindsight, cancelled the Arrow and purchased the Voodoo as historic for NORAD, then renegotiated our nuclear strike commitment for NATO into a CAS and tactical FEBA nuclear strike role and built under licence (with a more then willing Douglas) A-4s for both the RCAF in Germany and the RCN……..

Well, hindsight is 20/20, even from a cockpit, but as a casual U.S. observer spoiled by a plethora of multiple and sometimes redundant platforms, I am beginning to question the entire strategy of a single platform buy once per generation! A better mix of platforms staggered over the decades would have left Canada with more options than this all-or-nothing F-35 procurement for aging CF-18's. I think this piece supports your real world experience and observations:

Since 1971, Canada has reduced the number of fighter aircraft in support of global security and homeland security, from over 200 units of multiple types, to less than 80 of a single type, the CF-18 Hornet. At first glance, one would think this should not be a problem with 80 fighters. Yet of these 80 fighters, only 60 are available for mission support at any given time. Twenty CF-18s are assigned to training or testing roles for the air force, and they are not mission ready on a regular and routine basis.

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.⁷ Given this situation, with only 60 fighter aircraft available, Canada does not appear to always be able to meet its NORAD mandate of 36 fighters, let alone the nation’s other commitments.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22051-f-35-purchase-cancelled/page-115#entry938031