Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[waldo]

Indeed, she's also a graduate of RMC..........she rehashes many of the points that we've being going over for years, but well put together none the less.

another 'opinion' piece, properly annotated as such within the G&M... don't read too close because she confirms just what I've been saying about the Australian Super Hornet/Growler purchase caused by delays with the F-35 program.

.

Edited June 9, 2016 by waldo

[waldo]

And that is my point, without a doubt, the STOVL requirement as required by the Clinton Administration, added to the costs and delays in the early stages of the program, nearly resulting in the STOVL being cancelled...........over course, the physical engineering difficulties are now largely in the past, with remaining hurdles being that of software.

don't make me reach for "Kopp & Goon"... or Winston (even if he's gone emeritus)! I kid, I kid

.

[Derek 2.0]

well - they will need to substantiate those submarine purchases... and those wascally Chinese make them a tad nervous - but at the expense of F-35s? Say it ain't so!

.

Not in regards to tactical fighters, as in replacing their legacy Hornets.........their new subs will without a doubt be the cornerstone of their defense plan, both in terms of cost and capability, leading their military in both long range strike and surveillance, forces wide.

There are certainly pluses and minus for submarines versus an airborne asset..........range and accessibility being key, as ~80% of the World's population live within 100kms of an ocean.......inversely, an aircraft is far more flexible in a great many more roles, likewise once an aircraft expends all its munitions, its back to base for a reload and refuel....verses a sub, which is return to port or a tender to reload (and refuel since RAN's subs will be diesels).

[Derek 2.0]

another 'opinion' piece, properly annotated as such within the G&M... don't read too close because she confirms just what I've been saying about the Australian Super Hornet/Growler purchase caused by delays with the F-35 program.

.

I know, and she would be wrong.

[waldo]

I know, and she would be wrong.

you know I can't help myself here, right? So... with you calling into question her expertise, I'm forced to equally question her other points and the article itself - you made me do it!

ok, play time over... an early start tomorrow - CUlater.

.

[Derek 2.0]

you know I can't help myself here, right? So... with you calling into question her expertise, I'm forced to equally question her other points and the article itself - you made me do it!

ok, play time over... an early start tomorrow - CUlater.

.

Fair enough, but then the intricacies of the Australian defense establishments are probably not a worldly interest of many

[Derek 2.0]

don't make me reach for "Kopp & Goon"... or Winston (even if he's gone emeritus)! I kid, I kid

.

I would hope so........for shits and giggles, see what the cellphone salesmen says about the RAAF's purchase of the Super Hornet.....and the aircraft itself

[PIK]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/f-35-ready-to-go-company-says-as-u-s-air-force-prepares-to-declare-stealth-fighter-combat-ready

Trudeau might owe someone a apology. I will bet more and more of these planes will be flown by other countries before we get even one hornet.

[Smallc]

Is that the plane that the USN has but can't use, because it isn't ready.

[Argus]

you're right - too many mixed posts/discussions... I subsequently read you were actually speaking to the Danish comp. I'm not aware of any finalized competition within Finland - no monies available. Notwithstanding the dodgy process the Danish military followed, that final decision hasn't been made yet;

It has been made. They're buying the F-35. As far as I'm aware all our allies save perhaps those who make their own competitor aircraft have selected the F-35. Are they all corrupt? Incompetent?

Kuwait intends to buy 28 Super Hornets; that commitment was reaffirmed this last January. The Super Hornet was leading the Brazilian competition... that was scuttled by Brazil when the NSA spying on Brazilian leaders came forward... that resulted in Brazil selecting the Saab Gripen. Of course, Australia purchased 24 Super Hornets...

I don't care what third world countries buy. And Australia specifically decided to buy some hornets 11 years ago to replace the F-111 bombers, but they are buying F-35s.

what I said was accurate in terms of joining the program... in 2001... that was your reference point I responded to. What year is it now? What is the latest ever changing production date... for this phase? Once actual LRIP development came forward those additional monies paid allow companies within partner nations to bid on F-35 related contracts... of course, pork-barrel focused U.S. politicians like to take care of their own States first! And, again, Canada is not required to ever purchase a single F-35 to continue bidding on F-35 contracts put forward..

That is all meaningless babble. Has there ever been a complicated military technology, a new aircraft or ship which didn't have teething problems? Any aircraft we order won't be delivered for years anyway, plenty of time to work such things out.

And unlike you, General, I do not purport to be an expert. So I go by what our generals and the Air Force want, and take notice of what our allies are doing. Given you haven't suggested a motive for them all being corrupt morons in choosing an aircraft you and some bloggers regard as a piece of crap I am unconvinced of your beliefs.

[Argus]

not sure who you're speaking to... please be clearer/more precise!

you're confusing a so-called interim purchase (a stop-gap measure) and a full-competition.

Oh, gee, how could I be so confused! I mean, just because we buy the old S-Hornet now doesn't mean we won't order some F-35s in another, oh, twenty or thirty years, right?

Who do you guys think you're kidding?

for a F-35 to win a legitimate comparative competition, it would need to have a ready capable final product...

Aren't there already several hundred F-35s in service? Isn't the US Air Force about to declare them ready?

[Argus]

such dripping snarc! I offered an opinion - you don't have to accept it... you certainly don't have the knowledge chops to call out anyone in these threads.

On the contrary, I can evaluate the two sides of an argument quite well. On the one side is the RCAF and our fighters and generals the US military, Israel IDF, Australian RAAF Britain's RAF, Italy, the Netherlands military, Demark, Finland, Norway, South Korea etc.

On the other side is General Waldo and a bunch of internet bloggers.

[PIK]

First they make an election plank out of scuttling the F-35 sole-source fighter purchase, now we learn that they are looking at sole-sourcing the F-18. Instead of politicking, which jet Canada buys and how many is secondary to having a proper process that generates and legitimates a commitment on which to follow through.

Recently, the Danish government concluded the F-35 is cheaper, more efficient, and more effective than the alternatives and recommended the F-35 over the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon to replace its aging F-16 fleet. Contrary to the approach taken by Conservatives or Liberals in Canada, the Danish options analysis was transparent, public, and its findings were validated independently. There are important lessons for Canada here on both substance and method.

The Danish government considered four criteria: military performance, acquisition and life-cycle costs, industrial benefits, and strategic considerations — primarily the “ability … to support or fulfil Danish defence and security policy objectives, including potential co-operation with other countries.”

Article Continued Below

They evaluated each category separately and concluded the F-35 trumps the F/A-18 and the Typhoon in all four categories.

Given the F-35’s reputation, the conclusion about costs was most surprising — and key to the budget-conscious Danes. The detailed analysis provided to the parliament and public found that life cycle costs were driven by the number of expected flight hours of each aircraft: 8,000 for the F-35 and 6,000 for the F/A-18 and Typhoon. Since they last longer, the Danes concluded they could meet their defence needs over 30 years with fewer F-35s.

Critics have questioned the data used by the Danish Ministry of Defence. But the information was supplied by the companies themselves as part of the bidding process. Eurofighter explained they were very conservative in their estimate then, but have since calculated the Typhoon could fly for 8,300 hours. Boeing made a similar case: that the actual flight hours for each F/A-18 Super Hornet is 9,500.

The Danes have stood by their process, using data the manufacturers submitted, which they verified and was validated independently by external auditors. It is now up to the Parliament to consider the government’s recommendation.

There are two lessons here for Canada. First, reach a cross-party consensus in principle. In the Danish case, the political parties agreed in 2012, as a matter of principle, that a new combat aircraft purchase will take place, even with a minority government now in power.

Second, Parliament’s external validation can challenge but should not substitute new metrics for those used by the government. In Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Office, the Auditor General, and KPMG all used different metrics, including different life cycle lengths: whether you calculate jet fuel over 20 or 40 years makes quite the difference!

The Danish process included external validation by RAND Europe and Deloitte Consulting — whose joint report is also publicly available — as well as independent, outside experts. Barring illegality or incompetence on the part of the New Fighter Program Office, the Ministry of Defence, RAND Europe, and Deloitte, it is difficult to see how Boeing or Eurofighter can convince the Danish parliament to forego the government’s recommendations.

The Danish process is democratic and transparent, which makes it difficult to assail. It demonstrates democratic representatives can agree if the processes in place have integrity. More.....

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/06/08/what-does-ottawa-know-about-the-f-35-that-the-danes-dont.html

The Danes have done thier homework. This is the way jets are going, time to buy them and get on to something else.

Edited June 9, 2016 by PIK

[bush_cheney2004]

Is that the plane that the USN has but can't use, because it isn't ready.

The "USN" (and related "USMC") uses them all the time....lots of trials and quals going on. That's what makes them "ready". That's what made Canada buy a U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter years ago.

[Smallc]

The "USN" (and related "USMC") uses them all the time....lots of trials and quals going on. That's what makes them "ready". That's what made Canada buy a U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter years ago.

They're useless in a carrier strike group, as they aren't fully operational.

[bush_cheney2004]

They're useless in a carrier strike group, as they aren't fully operational.

Wrong....they are valuable for pilot type training, carrier quals, weapons quals, logistics ramp up, etc. You know, all the things associated with developing and deploying new aircraft. Maybe Canada is a little rusty at this....just wait for the Americans as usual and then buy some.

[waldo]

It has been made. They're buying the F-35. As far as I'm aware all our allies save perhaps those who make their own competitor aircraft have selected the F-35. Are they all corrupt? Incompetent?

no - Danish Parliament has yet to approve; again, Finland has not purchased (no monies). You talk of "selected" - original partner nations didn't select... they bought into the program site unseen... cause, wait for it... there wasn't anything to select! Some of those partner nations made initial verbal commitments. Your task, if you choose to accept it, is to provide the list of those initial commitment numbers and where they stand today (as in dramatically reduced in number intent)... notwithstanding the absence of actual contracts, money exchanged, planes purchased.

.

I don't care what third world countries buy. And Australia specifically decided to buy some hornets 11 years ago to replace the F-111 bombers, but they are buying F-35s.

no - that's the same party-line statement... Australia purchased Super Hornets/Growlers because it couldn't keep putting off purchases given the never ending F-35 delays. That's the same line D2.0 kept flogging... and then last night he trumpets a reference source who within the article referenced actually confirms Australia purchased those Super Hornets/Growlers for that very reason - ongoing F-35 delays.

.

That is all meaningless babble. Has there ever been a complicated military technology, a new aircraft or ship which didn't have teething problems? Any aircraft we order won't be delivered for years anyway, plenty of time to work such things out.

your 'teething problems' reflects upon a decade+ of a failed program - to the point that U.S. politicians and the U.S. military itself has been awakened to the reality that there just isn't the money available to purchase those original touted numbers for the respective military branches; to the point where those cost projections (as nonsensical as they are/as they ever shift) won't have the volume purchases behind them to support those projections - notwithstanding, again, partner nations have significantly downsized original commitments (cutting into the same volume number based projections)... but again, "commitment" is nothing more than a verbal 'tire kick'.

.

And unlike you, General, I do not purport to be an expert. So I go by what our generals and the Air Force want, and take notice of what our allies are doing. Given you haven't suggested a motive for them all being corrupt morons in choosing an aircraft you and some bloggers regard as a piece of crap I am unconvinced of your beliefs.

I've been responding to you respectively - for some reason you can't handle discussion that counters your statements and have a resulting need to keep using the 'General' pejorative (intent). Much of what has transpired is 'body of motion'... countries joined JSF without anything other than, effectively, a concept. There's this forever spiel that F-35 fan-boys have about "winning competitions" - yet, for most of that period there was nothing but unproven 'on-paper' specifications as a part of any so-called competitions.

.

[waldo]

Oh, gee, how could I be so confused! I mean, just because we buy the old S-Hornet now doesn't mean we won't order some F-35s in another, oh, twenty or thirty years, right?

Who do you guys think you're kidding?

the Super Hornet is an adequate plane for Canada's needs... particularly if all it ever does it what the F-18s have done. There's also nothing to suggest that doesn't shift into the Advanced Super Hornet at a later point (10% upgrade cost). I would think your claimed penchant for "fiscal conservatism" would want to confirm the F-35 capabilities... unproven to-date... before jumping into that fray - yes? In that regard, purchasing a gap measure of 'some number' of Super Hornets seems like a most prudent first-step - yes?

.

Aren't there already several hundred F-35s in service? Isn't the US Air Force about to declare them ready?

where... where exactly are those 185 showing up forever in the latest articles pumped by the LockMart machine? Where are they, what iteration are they, and what real capability do they have? If you're going to trumpet the number/the plane, surely you must have those details at the ready - yes?

.

[waldo]

They're useless in a carrier strike group, as they aren't fully operational.

as propaganda based as the F-35 IOC declarations are... it's quite telling to read the guy actually stepping forward to tout the 'C' variant years before it's even lining up around that 'fake' IOC declaration.

.

[?Impact]

Aren't there already several hundred F-35s in service? Isn't the US Air Force about to declare them ready?

The best source of information I could find is the Stackley/Bogden report to the House armed services committee (March of this year). On page 10, they say that 171 aircraft have been delivered. 151 of them are operational, including test aircraft.

[waldo]

On the contrary, I can evaluate the two sides of an argument quite well. On the one side is the RCAF and our fighters and generals the US military, Israel IDF, Australian RAAF Britain's RAF, Italy, the Netherlands military, Demark, Finland, Norway, South Korea etc.

On the other side is General Waldo and a bunch of internet bloggers.

I've regularly brought uncomfortable reality to these F-35 related threads by referencing U.S. GAO audits/reports on the F-35... from the U.S. Pentagon's DOT&E... from independent U.S. government monitoring organizations, etc.. Of course, these get short-shift (or typically outright ignored) here. You can choose to relegate that level/degree of fact-based reality to, as you say, "a bunch of internet bloggers"! Of course you can.

.

[waldo]

The best source of information I could find is the Stackley/Bogden report to the House armed services committee (March of this year). On page 10, they say that 171 aircraft have been delivered. 151 of them are operational, including test aircraft.

"operational" being the flavour of the day! 20 of those 171 are outright designated as 'DT' (development and testing). All this recent days Postmedia buzz about deliveries to "6 other nations"... having them sit on an American base tarmac... is that "delivered to other nations"?

.

[bush_cheney2004]

As usual, since there is so little information actually coming out of Canada's DND....look to the Americans and other partners for info instead. They don't care if Trudeau remains in power or not. Oh my, Oh my...which 'Murican "jet" to buy !

[waldo]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/f-35-ready-to-go-company-says-as-u-s-air-force-prepares-to-declare-stealth-fighter-combat-ready

Trudeau might owe someone a apology. I will bet more and more of these planes will be flown by other countries before we get even one hornet.

the politicization/propaganda machine and F-35 IOC declarations: Marines Declared F-35 IOC Despite Deficiencies That “Preclude Mission Readiness”

The Marine Corps declared Initial Operational Capability of their Lockheed F-35B fighter last July despite a number of deficiencies “that preclude aircraft mission readiness in support of …. initial operating capabilities.”

That admission, contained in a May 12 contract announcement (see below), contradicts most statements made at the time, and since, by the Marine Corps, the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) and prime contractor Lockheed Martin claiming that IOC meant the F-35B was ready for “worldwide deployment” and combat.

While this was generally accepted as a public relations exercise with no real foundation in fact, the Pentagon’s admission, albeit indirect, that the aircraft were so deficient they did not meet IOC standards should be a major embarrassment for the Corps, JPO and Lockheed Martin, as well as other senior Pentagon officials who at the time made enthusiastic statements which today seem wildly excessive.

pot-stir time: countdown to D2.0's excuse list... Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight - New stealth fighter is dead meat in an air battle

The fateful test took place on Jan. 14, 2015, apparently within the Sea Test Range over the Pacific Ocean near Edwards Air Force Base in California. The single-seat F-35A with the designation “AF-02” — one of the older JSFs in the Air Force — took off alongside a two-seat F-16D Block 40, one of the types of planes the F-35 is supposed to replace.

But the JSF’s advantage didn’t actually help in the end. The stealth fighter proved too sluggish to reliably defeat the F-16, even with the F-16 lugging extra fuel tanks. “Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement,” the pilot reported.

The defeated flier’s five-page report is a damning litany of aerodynamic complaints targeting the cumbersome JSF.

In the end, the F-35 — the only new fighter jet that America and most of its allies are developing — is demonstrably inferior in a dogfight with the F-16, which the U.S. Air Force first acquired in the late 1970s.

The test pilot explained that he has also flown 1980s-vintage F-15E fighter-bombers and found the F-35 to be “substantially inferior” to the older plane when it comes to managing energy in a close battle.

[?Impact]

What does stealth (5^th generation, next generation) really mean? A lot of noise has been made about this 'requirement', but what is really being delivered. We already know that this feature is compromised if the aircraft actually wants to do any useful work (ie. carry more than a couple of fire crackers, or fly further than across Aunt Sally's corn field), but even when the aircraft is 'stealth' does that really mean anything at all?

Probably the most successful stealth aircraft was the SR-71 blackbird. Not a single one was lost in combat, but did that have anything to do with its stealth capabilities? What many people don't realize is that it (and the F-35) still show up on even WWII radar. The advantage the SR-71 had was speed, altitude, jamming, and speed, speed, speed. The only one of those advantages the F-35 will have is jamming, and with autonomous missiles that is no longer as important as it once was. What many people don't realize is that the SR-71 was engaged over 800 times in combat, it's stealth capability was meaningless, it was still seen. The advantage it had was first the high altitude (80,000 ft) meant that the surface to air missiles (of the enemy at the time) exhausted most of their fuel just getting to the aircraft, and then it could easily increase speed to Mach 3.2 (official, there are unconfirmed reports it was able to sustain Mach 3.5). The F-35 will not be flying at those altitudes, and nowhere near those speeds (Mach 1.6).

There is no magic stealth capability, that is a Star Trek fantasy.