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

[On Guard for Thee]

Aside from a few exchanges with the USN, we haven’t been flying the Super Hornet…..at all.

Of course, the more apt question, would the Super Hornet meet requirements once it’s retired by the USN and RAAF in the early 2030s and we still have a requirement for a modern fighter out to the 2050s.......simply put, it won't.

Who is nervous? All the respective F-35 user's armed forces are awaiting both the improved and in many cases, completely new capabilities that the F-35 will bring to the table for their force structures.

Apparently you didn't read the article.

[Derek 2.0]

Apparently you didn't read the article.

Sure I did......Especially the header…….even though the leaked “crux” of said article alludes to events that took place several years ago……Of course presently, as already mentioned, the F-35A (what we will be getting) and the F-35B are in regular squadron service providing the transition training for both new and experienced aviators going forward.

[Army Guy]

10 ft taller indeed, good to have you back Derek

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, it is only fitting and proper that member Derek be here when Canada ultimately selects the F-35A JSF.

[segnosaur]

What are they 7 years behind sked and how many billions over budget? I doubt Canadian taxpayers are that dumb. Plus Harper will be long gone before they could ever hopt to deliver one.

Yes, the F35 has had many problems with cost over-runs and delays. (And like any other military jet, it wouldn't be surprising to see other problems appear in the near future.)

However, from the point of view of Canadian purchases, past delays and over-runs are in many cases irrelevant... The key factor will be what the negotiated price and delivery date is. (If the plane took an extra 7 years to be developed would be irrelevant to us.)

...and we don't need somethiong pilots are afraid of.

Not all pilots are 'afraid' of it... While I'm sure you can find a few pilots criticizing it, many like it:

From: http://breakingdefense.com/2012/07/first-air-guard-pilot-to-fly-f-35-gives-a-positive-review/

“It was a very easy aircraft to fly,” said Air Guard Maj. Jay Spohn in a phone call with reporters Tuesday afternoon. “There were no surprises, there were no malfunctions.”

From: http://gizmodo.com/371752/first-military-pilot-review-of-the-f-35-strike-fighter-verdict-kicks-ass

"The aircraft flew very well, exceeding my expectations," Kromberg said. "I was surprised by the amount of power on the takeoff roll. And the handling, particularly with the gear up, was phenomenal. The aircraft was very stable flying in formation with another airplane. It was really a joy to fly."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/06/f-35-design-problems-make-night-flying-impossible-increase-risk-of-being-shot-down-u-s-pilots-warn/

Keep in mind that many of the issues brought up in that article may not be due to actual problems with the planes, but simply because certain things haven't been tested yet.

Some of the issues listed involved problems with the helmet (e.g. night vision). However, a version of the helmet (with many of those problems solved) has been completed.

From: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/singapore-air-show/2014-02-08/f-35-test-pilots-will-begin-flying-gen-helmet-display

The Gen 3 HMDS “will include an improved night-vision camera, new liquid-crystal displays, automated alignment and software improvements,”

Superhornet does all we need, and we have been flying them for years.

As Derek 2.0 pointed out.. no, we have not been "flying them for years".

The CF-18s we have are basically modified versions of the F18A/B. The Superhornet is a modification with the designation F18E or F18F. The Superhornet is pretty much a completely different plane from the F18A/B (and CF18)... much larger, different engines, different avionics. There will probably be very little compatibility savings if we decided to use the Superhornet.

Nobody's nervous, and the cost savings!

That is... questionable.

Opponents of the F35 like to jump on every cost over run, every problem, and say "Boo! Hiss". However, whatever plane is selected will be in use for 3-4 decades. This is a long term project, and any problems now have to be weighed against potential problems that can occur in the future.

The super hornet might have a lower initial fly-away cost. The problem comes in 2 decades time. Right now, the U.S. and Australia are the only users of the F18E/F, and both countries selected the plane as a sort of "stop-gap" measure. What happens if we buy a fleet of Super Hornets, and they need maintenance or upgrades? We may be the only user of the plane... Canada may be the sole country stuck with the cost of upgrades. (Heck, we may even have to buy extra planes and/or spare parts to handle any attrition.) On the other hand, the F35 has already been ordered by multiple countries... The U.S., Britain, Norway, Italy, Australia. . When it comes time to upgrade these planes, or we require spare parts, any development costs can be split amongst multiple countries. (And Lockheed Martin will likely continue building F35s for the forseeable future, unlike the F18 which may stop production by the end of the decade. This will make replacements much easier to obtain.)

[bush_cheney2004]

Looks like the Canadian sub-contractors for the F-35 program don't want to see their gravy train go away. Offsets for Canadian jobs would not be a given if a different platform is selected.

The Canadian companies that are participating in the F-35 fighter jet program are urging the federal government to bypass a competition and return to its original plan to sole-source the purchase of the U.S.-based Lockheed-Martin aircraft.

“Using a competition to simply delay making a decision is costly, unnecessary and not in the interests of Canadian taxpayers or Canadian industry. That is bad management, bad policy and bad for business,” the industry group made up of 35 Canadian firms said in an open letter.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-urged-to-bypass-competition-for-fighter-jet-program/article18851234/

[monty16]

We should look to the Russians for MIG technology. It's usually superior and we won't need jets to fight the Russians anyway. The Russians 'aren't' coming and never were. Neither are the Chinese coming, except with more cheap goods for us.

Unfortunately, the US will apply the heat to Harper's feet and we'll end up wasting billions.

Edited May 27, 2014 by monty16

[Army Guy]

Now thats funney shit right there.....

[bush_cheney2004]

...Unfortunately, the US will apply the heat to Harper's feet and we'll end up wasting billions.

It was PM Chretien and the Liberals who started Canada's F-35 rodeo, not PM Harper, who finally started to clean up the procurement mess across the board for rotary winged and heavy lift aircraft.

[On Guard for Thee]

It was PM Chretien and the Liberals who started Canada's F-35 rodeo, not PM Harper, who finally started to clean up the procurement mess across the board for rotary winged and heavy lift aircraft.

"Cleaning up the procurement mess"? That has got to be the most hilarious characterization of what Harper has done with this file ever. You don't have enough fingers to count up the lies he was caught in. The auditor general released a scathing report outling the misleading statements on technical difficulties, production delays, and of course huge cost overruns. It even helped get him the dubious distinction of being the only PM in Canadian history to be found in contempt of parliament. Yep that's really cleaning things up.

[On Guard for Thee]

From what I read in the paper, the review of the fighter replacement program is complete and is being reviewed by cabinet and a report will follow. Will Harper try and hide that until after the next election? Let's hope they have come to their senses.

[bush_cheney2004]

Australia is going for 58 additional F-35s:

...So the F-35 becomes the only logical choice for Australia. It’s the only 21st century design on the market, and it promises much higher performance than any of the alternatives. The next question becomes the numbers. With 14 already approved (though only two of those are contracted to date), the new approval of 58 brings the total up to 72 — a near perfect one-for-one replacement for the old Hornets. The plan under AIR 6000 was always for 72 aircraft in the first couple of phases, with another 28 aircraft of some type in Phase C.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/jsf-the-only-way-to-fly-into-future/story-fn59nlz9-1226936460799

[PIK]

For the people in ONT the F-35 cost us about $700 each compared to the Samsung deal which is costing us 1400 bucks. I will take the jets over a wind turbine.

[PIK]

"Cleaning up the procurement mess"? That has got to be the most hilarious characterization of what Harper has done with this file ever. You don't have enough fingers to count up the lies he was caught in. The auditor general released a scathing report outling the misleading statements on technical difficulties, production delays, and of course huge cost overruns. It even helped get him the dubious distinction of being the only PM in Canadian history to be found in contempt of parliament. Yep that's really cleaning things up.

Because of the incompetent liberal bureaucracy we are stuck with, and the fact the people that there work because they can speak French.

[On Guard for Thee]

Because of the incompetent liberal bureaucracy we are stuck with, and the fact the people that there work because they can speak French.

I think Harper lies as well in both languages. And as far as the F 35 is concerned, most of the lies are the numbers reported, which are kinda bilingual.

[Smallc]

The numbers are not lies, as has already been shown to you.

[On Guard for Thee]

Is that why Harper shut the program down for 2 years, because the numbers didn't lie? I think not. That's because he got caught lieing about the numbers.

[Smallc]

Is that why Harper shut the program down for 2 years, because the numbers didn't lie? I think not. That's because he got caught lieing about the numbers.

Every set of numbers is right, actually. It's just the questions that are different...some of the questions don't make sense, and have never been asked before.

[On Guard for Thee]

Every set of numbers is right, actually. It's just the questions that are different...some of the questions don't make sense, and have never been asked before.

That sounds like a Rob Ford defence. Apparently Micheal Ferguson didn't buy it. Frank Kendall, the man in charge of procurment in the US, called the F35 program "acquisition malpractice". It will be interesting to see what is in this report.

[Smallc]

The US price is not the Canadian price. Again, every single number is right. The numbers the government gave come from a reporting method that has always been used for large procurements. We didn't report lifecycle costs before, because they're misleading. The net cost of this program is not $42B...it's $9B (actually, it's not even that).

[On Guard for Thee]

The AG report showed that the government was touting one number (14.7 billion) while in the backrooms the "other" nyumber was 25 billion. Either Harper wasn't aware, and therefore incompetent, or he was and was plain lieing. And of course the cost's have skyrocketed since then, as ever more problems arise. Cracks in the engines, can't fly it at night, can't fly it IFR, has to be kept in a warm hangar. Plus it's slower, less maneuverable, shorter range, and has less firepower than the 30 year old F-18's it seeks to replace. That's a lot of dough for an airplane with all those problems.

[Smallc]

Again, all of those numbers are right, it simply depends on the question. Your other information is simply wrong. It's slower, just as manoeuvrable, can fly far further, and can carry just as many weapons as our current jet. All new aircraft have development problems. Look at the A400M, the 787, or the A380.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not according to some fairly highly placed officials with in the program, and including comments from some F 35 test pilots at Elgin.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/06/f-35-design-problems-make-night-flying-impossible-increase-risk-of-being-shot-down-u-s-pilots-warn/#2

http://www.alternet.org/fail-400-billion-military-jet-cant-fly-cloudy-weather?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

http://rt.com/usa/f35-jet-software-delay-233/

[Smallc]

I know the information. All you have to do is google it. Let's start with the fact that the F-35 carries its weapons internally (under normal load) and so doesn't have the drag factor of the hornet. That means it's more maneuverable and faster in combat configuration.

Now let's move on to range:

F-35: 1080 km on internal fuel

F-18: 740 km...with weapons carried on pilons...meaning it's going to be slower and less maneuverable than the Lightning.

Shall we go on?

[On Guard for Thee]

Again, all of those numbers are right, it simply depends on the question. Your other information is simply wrong. It's slower, just as manoeuvrable, can fly far further, and can carry just as many weapons as our current jet. All new aircraft have development problems. Look at the A400M, the 787, or the A380.

Well, the 380 for example first flew in April o5, and then did it's first commercial flight in Oct. 07. I think that kind of comparison isn't going to help the F 35 image much.