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

[waldo]

It's also worth nothing that the E/A-18 models being procured by the navy are a replacement of prowlers, and not earlier budgeted F-35C purchases. Any cuts in F-35C procurement by the navy comes as a result of sequestration, and not some mythical shunning of the said naval variant.

source/cite?...

Edited June 3, 2014 by waldo

[Smallc]

Well just check when the first flight of the F 18 was and then when it went into service. Or the 787 or the 380. As I said the F35 "teething" problems are "unprecedented" and they just won't go away. Recently it turns out the Chineese have software that "busts" the F 35. Oops.

So the Chinese say...but unlikely.

This aircraft is unprecedented. It combines unprecedented technology in a way that has never been done, but this kind of problem isn't that uncommon. The aircraft will be the best in the world, and will begin proving it in just over 18 months.

[waldo]

The aircraft will be the best in the world, and will begin proving it in just over 18 months.

and until that 'gleam in your eye' is realized (however you arrived at "18 months"), you're clearly quite content to pump the F-35 flying butterball "bomb truck" based on little more than outright LockMart propaganda.

[waldo]

So the Chinese say...but unlikely.

oh, really? From WAPO: Confidential report lists U.S. weapons system designs compromised by Chinese cyberspies

[On Guard for Thee]

So the Chinese say...but unlikely.

This aircraft is unprecedented. It combines unprecedented technology in a way that has never been done, but this kind of problem isn't that uncommon. The aircraft will be the best in the world, and will begin proving it in just over 18 months.

And that "unprecedentedness" in terms of delay, never mind the horrendous cost overruns, will make it available long after our F 18's will all fall out of the sky. For instance that is why Aussi bought a bunch of Hornets, just as an "gap filler" and now are thinking about them as a primary replacement.

[On Guard for Thee]

In any case I wait with bated breath to see what this report has in it. But I fear it get's buried at least until after the 2015 election.

[bush_cheney2004]

Detractors would still whine about program costs even if the Boeing Super Hornet were selected instead. They even whined about the costs for Band-Aid upgrades to the existing CF-18 aircraft. But the Super Hornet won't be selected....or perhaps even available....the F-35 is the superior aircraft.

.....When 100 single-seat Super Hornets had been produced, the unit recurring flyaway cost—with all necessary electronics included—was about $110 million in today’s dollars, which is where F-35C is likely to stand at the 100th airplane. And when F-35C gets to 300 airplanes, its unit recurring flyaway cost will be about $90 million—right where the F/A-18E (the single-seat version) was in today’s dollars.

These numbers can be verified easily by perusing the Pentagon’s Selective Acquisition Reports. What they reveal is that the F/A-18E and F-35C have nearly identical unit production costs at the same stages in their evolutions. Where the airplanes differ markedly is in their operational performance—items like survivability, situational awareness and strike capability. Such differences explain why the Navy needs a new fighter in the first place.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-f-35-not-too-pricey-performance-better

[On Guard for Thee]

Detractors would still whine about program costs even if the Boeing Super Hornet were selected instead. They even whined about the costs for Band-Aid upgrades to the existing CF-18 aircraft. But the Super Hornet won't be selected....or perhaps even available....the F-35 is the superior aircraft.

.....When 100 single-seat Super Hornets had been produced, the unit recurring flyaway cost—with all necessary electronics included—was about $110 million in today’s dollars, which is where F-35C is likely to stand at the 100th airplane. And when F-35C gets to 300 airplanes, its unit recurring flyaway cost will be about $90 million—right where the F/A-18E (the single-seat version) was in today’s dollars.

These numbers can be verified easily by perusing the Pentagon’s Selective Acquisition Reports. What they reveal is that the F/A-18E and F-35C have nearly identical unit production costs at the same stages in their evolutions. Where the airplanes differ markedly is in their operational performance—items like survivability, situational awareness and strike capability. Such differences explain why the Navy needs a new fighter in the first place.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-f-35-not-too-pricey-performance-better

The SuperHornet has already got well over 300 airplanes flying. And they can do what they said they would, more or less. At least there aren't pieces flying off them in flight like the 35, that is whan they can get a 35 flying.

[bush_cheney2004]

If the F-35 detractors are so concerned about teething pains for brand new, low hours, F-35 airframes, then why are those same Canadians satisfied to continue flying so many tired and aging aircraft until they fall out of the sky?

[On Guard for Thee]

 

If the F-35 detractors are so concerned about teething pains for brand new, low hours, F-35 airframes, then why are those same Canadians satisfied to continue flying so many tired and aging aircraft until they fall out of the sky?

 

Simple answer: buy new Super Hornets. Tried and true, and already in service.

[On Guard for Thee]

 

  

Simple answer: buy new Super Hornets. Tried and true, and already in service.

 

As well as the fact if we wait for the F35 to get it's ...stuff together, our current F 18's will be falling out of the sky, probably due to rust in that scenario.

[On Guard for Thee]

Simply put, I can appreciate Lock Mart's valliant effort to try to build a plane that can do it all. Unfortunately, such things as aerodynamics, physics, and basic science stood in the way. Put another way, if you can, imagine let's say a Ford Aerostar van, and you install a V12 Jag engine, then you cut the top off and make it a convertable, then you install a trailer hitch and connect a fold out tent camper. What have you got?

You've got a ground based F 35.

[bush_cheney2004]

This time around, Canada won't be able to pick a cheaper alternative. There are no Iltis jeep economy strike fighters available. Try the rest...then buy the best.

[On Guard for Thee]

This time around, Canada won't be able to pick a cheaper alternative. There are no Iltis jeep economy strike fighters available. Try the rest...then buy the best.

Ha Ha Ha, let me guess, do you drive a Ford Aerostar?

[Smallc]

And that "unprecedentedness" in terms of delay, never mind the horrendous cost overruns, will make it available long after our F 18's will all fall out of the sky. For instance that is why Aussi bought a bunch of Hornets, just as an "gap filler" and now are thinking about them as a primary replacement.

No they aren't. The Super Hornet was used as a replacement for the F-111. They have already went ahead with the purchase of 70 F-35A models and may now buy more F-35B models to replace the very hornets you're trumpeting.

[waldo]

In all categories that involve distance that can be flown, the F-35 is superior.

uhhh... no. The combat radius of the Advanced Super Hornet is greater than that of the F-35. You know... the 'Advanced' version the USN is so keen about!

an extract from a previous post:

further to the earlier costing "opinion" offered; re: Super Hornet versus F-35:

per, 'Mike Gibbons - vice president of F/A-18 & EA-18 Programs for Boeing Military Aircraft: "A complete Super Hornet [F/A-18E/F], with engine and electronic warfare gear, currently costs about $51 million... a fully equipped Growler [EA-18G] costs about $60 million)"... he's also offered comment that the "Advanced Super Hornet" upgrade, would add ~10% additional costs to that of the existing Super Hornet costs. A googly with 'Mike Gibbons, Super Hornet costs' will bring forward many article references stating these/like figures... one of those being a CBC article from early 2013.

[Smallc]

Maybe with external tanks, not without...and that's an even more mythical aircraft.

[waldo]

Maybe with external tanks, not without...and that's an even more mythical aircraft.

they're called 'conformal tanks'... as distinct from 'external'. Nothing new; several planes have them. In the case of the 'Advanced Super Hornet' they (and the weapons pod upgrade) are center-mount and a part of it's 'steathiness' path upgrade. There's nothing mythical about it/them

[Smallc]

So only on external tanks. Thanks for the info. The aircraft performance is still reduced and the cross section increased.

By the by, the F-35 can use conformal tanks too - for even further range.

Thanks for playing.

[waldo]

So only on external tanks. Thanks for the info. The aircraft performance is still reduced and the cross section increased.

By the by, the F-35 can use conformal tanks too - for even further range.

Thanks for playing.

playing? I don't mind showing that most of the time you really don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you should have quoted the combat radius... with that option, hey? Wonder why it's really not the 'official' number pushed for the F-35, hey? Why would that be... what does it give up? And please tell us all again, why Canada needs the (at this stage) "supposed" stealth capabilities of the F-35... particularly with all that "stealth busting" going on out there?

and, again, there is a distinction between conformal and external.

in any case, in consideration of those Arctic long-range patrol requirements, the Advanced Super Hornet would be the better priced option for Canada. Ya think?

[Smallc]

The F-35 brings many things to the table, stealth being only one of those things (and if stealth is so unimportant, I wonder why Boeing is so keen to point out the reduced cross section of the F/A-18E/F, eh?).

[Smallc]

Being as the US Navy is sticking with the F-35 along side the Super Hornet (an aircraft it was never designed to replace), I wonder who would pay for this mythical advanced Super Hornet for Canada, that no one else is buying?

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada has no Super Hornets, no Growlers, no Super Duper Hornets, and no F-35s. Unlike Australia or the USN, Canada has no blended option or contingency strategy even if the F-35A is a complete and total failure. Tick...tock...tick...tock...

[Smallc]

It won't be.

[waldo]

The F-35 brings many things to the table, stealth being only one of those things (and if stealth is so unimportant, I wonder why Boeing is so keen to point out the reduced cross section of the F/A-18E/F, eh?).

cause it feeds into the uninformed! Out of all the whiz-bang updates the LockMart propaganda factory has been issuing, particularly of late, why nothing on stealth? Is there a problem? Like I said, you're a real fan of the glossy brochures!