Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Argus]

citation request... specific to the costs you reference.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25594-still-going-to-buy-the-f-35-really/page-70#entry1164965

in regards Denmark: so it's Parliament did approve it (yesterday)... for reference in line with my earlier comments about partner nations significantly dialing back their original commitments:

So why didn't they by the old Super Hornet instead?

You balance that against actual purchases and numbers therein... while comparing back to original commitments made. And, of course, you obviously factor in the ever extending timelines..

So how many nations have decided to buy the old F-18 instead? In round numbers, please.

[segnosaur]

Present agreement regarding Canada's purchase of f-35's IRB's - (Industrial Regional Benefits) does not guarantee that a single penny of benefits has to go to Canadian industry. Is that what we want?

Well, in a situation like that, it seems reasonable to try to actually arrange guarantees prior to signing any contracts. (Something along the lines of "If we buy the plane, guarantee that a canadian company will build Widget X for either all planes in the fleet, or at least for all Canadian planes. Or "if we buy the planes, guarantee Canadian companies will be used for other Locheed-Martin projects".)

With the time lines, costs and lack of specific needs maybe Cabada should be looking at the 6th generation FA-XX manned/unmanned aircraft:

Looks like sophisticated drones appear to be the future, why not get ahead of the curve?

A couple of problems with that option...

First of all, if you look at the link you provided, it states that the drones won't be ready until sometime after 2030, years after we will have had to retire or CF18 fleet. And that's assuming development of drone technology proceeds on schedule... as we've seen with the F35, new and radical technology often encounter difficulties during development (and I think "large scale drone capable of replacing manned vehicles" qualifies as new/radical.) So you could be looking at a time frame closer to 2040 by the time these things will be available.

Secondly, your reference also suggests that the U.S. navy is not planning an all-drone fleet, but one of a mixture of F35s/Drones. The U.S. military is huge, and they have a lot of money to throw around... they can afford to have planes that serve niche roles. Canada spends a lot less.. whatever we get will have to do pretty much everything, and that will not likely be drones (at least not at first.)

I have no doubt that drone technology will improve, and that some day they may take the place of manned vehicles. But, there are a lot of problems... the biggest issue is probably the interface. (The ability to easily observe the plane's surroundings is limited in drones because of the amount of data that would be need to be transmitted, as well as lag time between the drone and the ground.)

Frankly, I find the whole "Lets buy drones!" argument to be a case of the anti-F35 clan grasping at straws, throwing any sort of bizarre unworkable plan out there with the goal of poisoning the well.

[Argus]

I am not sure however that we want to work with a US navy program, for the same reason the F-35 is such a dog.

Perhaps you, like General Waldo, could treat us to the extensive list of your military and avionic experience and credentials so we can properly evaluate your statement's value. When you submit these please also explain why no western nation has decided to dump the 'dog' of a fighter and buy that wonderful 20 year old super hornet instead.

[Army Guy]

Regardless if there is still issues with the F-35, we don't have to make a purchase right now," despite the liberals claim time is running out and there will be a capabilities gaps"......

our Current CF-18 is good until 2025, and in case the Liberals are not aware this year is 2016, 9 years away....And to those Anything but F-35 crowd.....

where will the F-35 be in this time....it will be flying in many air forces around the world...that's where...

Except Canada, where we will be flying the super Hornet , purchased on a sole source contract, an illegal contract, pushed through by our "sunny ways" liberals....A contract that will not be costed out to the 40 year mark, to balloon the price, one that will not meet any of the requirements demanded by liberals or NDP's for the f-35 purchase.....which will be laughed at by liberal supporters, and forgotten by Canadian tax payers long before an election is called....

Once again the military will get a piece of equipment they don't want, does not meet all the specs they where asking for, specs that would mean giving our pilots the edge in combat....but who cares its just some air force guy we'll get more if we have to their cheap, or cheaper than buying the right equipment....

[segnosaur]

Except Canada, where we will be flying the super Hornet , purchased on a sole source contract, an illegal contract, pushed through by our "sunny ways" liberals....

It might not happen that way.

Instead, the Liberals could hold a fair and open competition... but rig the competition so that only the F18 has a chance of winning.

Edited June 10, 2016 by segnosaur

[SpankyMcFarland]

So you don't think we're in the same league as the big boys like Australia and Denmark?

I am beginning to think not, and the Danes seem to be better shipbuilders than we are these days. Each large military purchase we try to make gets bogged down in endless controversy, no matter which government is in power.

Edited June 10, 2016 by SpankyMcFarland

[Army Guy]

Maybe , and this would be a novel idea.....we let the Military decide on what equipment it needs and wants....and have government control the amount of funding it is willing to spend that year....

[bush_cheney2004]

....I am not sure however that we want to work with a US navy program, for the same reason the F-35 is such a dog. The US navy requires that aircraft be able to takeoff and land on aircraft carriers.

Odd, considering that the last time this circus came to town, Canada selected a U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter...the F/A-18 Hornet. A longer range and better performing land based Northrop F/A-18L was proposed, but Canada was too miserly to fund development.

[waldo]

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25594-still-going-to-buy-the-f-35-really/page-70#entry1164965

perfect! The figures, the reference you keep pumping in regards to Finland costing turns out to be, wait for it... wait for it... "A recently retired senior air force officer"... anonymous yet. Oh Argus!

.

So why didn't they by the old Super Hornet instead?

a decision criteria based on costing?... suspect as has been detailed with concerns formally registered with the Danish Parliament... tell me/us, what active, production, combat-ready version of the F-35 was evaluated against any of the other alternatives to the F-35?

.

So how many nations have decided to buy the old F-18 instead? In round numbers, please.

start with Australia... by default, it purchased the Super Hornet, "instead"... cause it could no longer accept further delays with the F-35. You ignored my earlier reply. But really, you're so pumping the F-35... based on what - just how far out/long is the Argus ready to wait for an unproven F-35?

if you want to keep speaking to 'other countries' I'm confused why you won't address earlier requests. Let me more precise: of the official JSF partner nations, (United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark, and Norway)... how many F-35s have actually been purchased... not original commitments... not even rolled back commitments from the originals - how many have been purchased, by which countries and over what time frames?

perhaps you'd like to comment further on that Denmark sale: as reference, the original early program commitment had Denmark purchasing 48... over time (per countries concerns with delays, under delivery, suspect results, over costing, etc..), that got peeled back to 30... and now settles in at the 27 purchased. Since others around here have shown no qualms in the past in taking a quoted sale price (without regard to specifics of the sale) and equating it to a per/plane costing, let's examine in that regard: 20 billion Kroner equates to the $3 billion U.S. figure quoted... which comes in at ~$112 million U.S. per plane. Which, of course in current Canadian exchange equivalent comes in at ~$3.8 billion and ~$142 million per plane. How do those costs sit with you, hey?

what seems to be somewhat lost in this hyping of the Denmark sale is it's 27 planes between the 2021 and 2026 period... it's odd that they're waiting so long - I mean, didn't they just evaluate "something"? (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). The point of emphasizing the significantly reduced commitment number is that it's not unique to Denmark... notwithstanding mega-uncertainty concerning just what numbers the respective branches of the U.S. military will ultimately purchase. All these continued F-35 cost projections presume on expected sale numbers/volume purchases - why should anyone have confidence in any projections coming forward from JPO/LockMart?

.

[waldo]

our Current CF-18 is good until 2025, and in case the Liberals are not aware this year is 2016, 9 years away....And to those Anything but F-35 crowd.....

how is it you're still stating this 2025 date? This has already been discussed, one of your own provided links shows this not to be the case... and I've replied to you twice with a reference that also suggests otherwise. Again, it's 2020/21 unless another ~1/2 billion is spent to extend the life another 4/5 years to 2025... details of that have been discussed and cited.

.

[?Impact]

Odd, considering that the last time this circus came to town, Canada selected a U.S. Navy carrier based strike fighter...the F/A-18 Hornet. A longer range and better performing land based Northrop F/A-18L was proposed, but Canada was too miserly to fund development.

The problem as you point out with the F-18L was that no other nation was committed to it so we would be funding development. The F-16 was winning all the contracts, and Canadian military brass had an aversion to a single engine fighter. I agree that at the time the F-18L was the better aircraft from a technical standpoint for Canada, but economics and project risk were the deciding factors. The legal issues between McDonnell Douglas and Northrop at the time didn't help matters. Politics of course played a major role as well, with all the various contenders having differing industrial benefits both direct and indirect.

[bush_cheney2004]

The problem as you point out with the F-18L was that no other nation was committed to it so we would be funding development.....Politics of course played a major role as well, with all the various contenders having differing industrial benefits both direct and indirect.

It is clear to me that actual aircraft performance is the least important factor in a Canadian style "competiton" (wherein aircraft don't actually compete in any kind of trials). It's all about the cost, jobs, politics, and "optics". I predict that, as before, the choice(s) will actually be narrowed down as any alternatives/options expire over time. The world doesn't stand still for Canada to say "Yes to the Dress".

[Army Guy]

how is it you're still stating this 2025 date? This has already been discussed, one of your own provided links shows this not to be the case... and I've replied to you twice with a reference that also suggests otherwise. Again, it's 2020/21 unless another ~1/2 billion is spent to extend the life another 4/5 years to 2025... details of that have been discussed and cited.

.

It is not "me" who put me on that track it was "you", or have you forgotten already, I had posted that I could find lots of sources that had stated that the ELE for 2025 had been approved but none that had said the work had been started or completed....

to which you posted this....Perhaps my reading comprehension is not up to speed, but does this not suggest that the ELE for 2025 has been approved, and work is under way and to be completed by 2021.....which would also mean the new figure would be 2025....

That is your post is it not....number 1069....

a reference to it can be found in that original link I provided to you - this one: --- per that April 2016 article, this latest modernization requirement was officially 'kicked off' in September 2015... per Lt.-Col. Jean-Marc Brzezinski, who is leading the process in the RCAF’s fighter capability office, he has been given, 'roughly a year' => “My mandate has been given roughly about one year to look at what we need to do to make sure the aircraft is airworthy (and) interoperable,” The rest is... making it all happen and complete by 2021 in order to provide the extension to 2025.

Now your saying none of that ever happened, funding was not approved in 2014, nor is any of the Lt Col work done, and the aircraft have not received any additional work to them.

To which if true, all that needs to be done is spend 500 mil get the upgrades done, no more time issues, enough to do a fair competition....

[waldo]

To which if true, all that needs to be done is spend 500 mil get the upgrades done, no more time issues, enough to do a fair competition....

and that is the case - as I'm aware, the "what must be done (and particulars from there) has not been finalized and presented yet - and approved"... that determining process started in Sept 2015 with that stated, "about a year" to complete. You continuing to state 'good to 2025', presumes on that process completing, the result approved, work to commence and complete... all to give an extra 4/5 years of life to the current end-life of 2020/2021 with the prior estimated ~1/2 billion cost. So... this is all predicated on the F-35 being in a full production state and a proven entity between 2021 and 2025. Based on past delays/problems with the F-35 program should this simply be "matter of fact" and accepted outright - who other than the most die-hard partisan F-35 proponent would accept that? An unknown quantity at an unknown cost! The alternative to that could be... purchase some number of proven Super Hornets as an "interim gap measure"... and allow the F-35 to actually settle in, prove itself and have realistic/actual costs determined accordingly. What a concept!

.

Edited June 10, 2016 by waldo

[Army Guy]

"As your aware", you'll have to excuse me Waldo but that's not a source....That's you and me not knowing...Hence why I asked the question in my post you responded to....

Like I said, I can find plenty of sources stating that the 500 mil was approved by the Harper government...I had also said I could not find a source that the work had been started, or completed....that was until you feed me your source....

You presume that the LT Col has not meet his dead line, to identify the required work that needs to be done, you also presume that the work is not being done at this very minute.....Once again other than your source I have found nothing that states the work has been or has not been done, of course why would it be announced to be completed because it has until 2021 to be completed...

And no it has nothing to do with the F-35, if it is not ready by then "still 5 years out mind you"....Then a fair competition will rule it out, And while it is die hard fans of the F-35 that will remain positive that 5 years is more than enough, given the fact that project has come along ways in the last 5 years....But it does not remain a fact....so hopefully it is up to the challenge in 5 years time....

Purchasing an interim aircraft makes sense if we could afford one than one type of airframe....we can barely afford 65 of one type....But we still have plenty of time to hit reset on this project....it is what Canadians wanted after all a fair competition, a fly off to decide this once and for all....Now that would be a wonderful concept.....

[waldo]

"As your aware", you'll have to excuse me Waldo but that's not a source....

that's what you come back with? It's a profiled issue; the prior 2 modernization pursuits were covered to the nth degree pubicly and yet... somehow... you automatically presume that we (the public) would hear nothing about this latest one? Is that really your position or are you just so determined to... argue for the sake of argument? The "as I'm aware" usage is simply a statement that I've not found anything to the contrary - I can't give you something that might not exist - ya think! I could say the same wasted space comment as you've just thrown back to me - you not being able to find a source is not YOUR excuse, is it?

you keep nattering on about "money approved by Harper" - here's the thing, once the Air Force actually figures out what might be needed and determines the practical and logistical aspects to realize that need... lower-level approvals are required from branches of government to actually realize those monies and initiate actions to dispense them - the DND, Treasury, PSPC, etc. Do you really think given the politicization around the CF-18 replacement undertaking, that there would be a dearth of information in that regard? In recent days, the so-called gap is playing prominently in comments, rationale, etc.. Could there be such a gap... if the latest modernization understandings/intent were known and work was proceeding to eliminate that so-called gap? In that article cited/referenced (April, 2016), the Air Force lead of this latest modernization pursuit is stated as saying, "Brzezinski said the upgrades have to be on the aircraft by 2021 if the project is to make financial sense. That means decisions have to be made and contracts placed within the next two years." I guess, for the sake of your own 'argue to argue sake', work can be progressing without any public knowledge of government approvals, of contracts having been let, bid on and selected... it's not like the government has a formal process around all that with full information available to the public! Ya think?

I'm going to repeat the following since you so clearly chose to ignore/blow it off - perhaps you might be inclined to actually comment given another chance - yes?

So... this is all predicated on the F-35 being in a full production state and a proven entity between 2021 and 2025. Based on past delays/problems with the F-35 program should this simply be "matter of fact" and accepted outright - who other than the most die-hard partisan F-35 proponent would accept that? An unknown quantity at an unknown cost! The alternative to that could be... purchase some number of proven Super Hornets as an "interim gap measure"... and allow the F-35 to actually settle in, prove itself and have realistic/actual costs determined accordingly. What a concept!

.

[Argus]

start with Australia... by default, it purchased the Super Hornet, "instead"... c

That's crap and you know it. They bought some old f-18s as a stopgap measure a decade ago. And now they're buying the F-35.

And you continue to dwell on the fact that increased costs have made other nations lower the size of their orders for the F-35 while ignoring the fact not one western nation has decided to equip itself with the old, dated F-18. If this seems such an obvious decision to you why have none of our allies agreed?

And if it's obvious the F-18 would win an 'open and transparent' competition why don't you guys want to hold one? Is it for the same reason you won't hold a referendum? Because you know you'd lose?

Edited June 10, 2016 by Argus

[Smallc]

That's crap and you know it. They bought some old f-18s as a stopgap measure a decade ago. And now they're buying the F-35.

And you continue to dwell on the fact that increased costs have made other nations lower the size of their orders for the F-35 while ignoring the fact not one western nation has decided to equip itself with the old, dated F-18. If this seems such an obvious decision to you why have none of our allies agreed?

And if it's obvious the F-18 would win an 'open and transparent' competition why don't you guys want to hold one? Is it for the same reason you won't hold a referendum? Because you know you'd lose?

Australia didn't but Super Hornets a decade ago. They aren't old. They're still rolling off the production line, and still receiving software updates.

[Derek 2.0]

Can Canada afford to stay in this game? The national will to pay untold billions for such hardware seems to be lacking.

Not much of a defense.......nations with far smaller economies manage to maintain a capable military.

[bush_cheney2004]

Australia didn't but Super Hornets a decade ago. They aren't old. They're still rolling off the production line, and still receiving software updates.

Canada did not buy Super Hornets a decade ago...preferring to extend the service life for its old CF-188s. What was wrong with the Super Hornet back then ?

[?Impact]

They bought some old f-18s as a stopgap measure a decade ago. And now they're buying the F-35.

Yes, the Super Hornet's are there because Australia was not confident in the FA-35 delivery. They have 72 F-35As on order, expected to be operational by 2023.

2006 - Announced intention to buy 24 SuperHornet's

2011 - Actual purchase of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets (now operational, already used in combat against ISIS)

2013 - Announced plan to purchase 12 EA-18G Growler (2018 operational)

Note the EA-18G Growler is an electronic warfare version derivative of the F/A-18F Block II. It removes the internal gun, adds electronics within the aircraft to help it detect and jam enemy radars, and mounts four specialized ECM (Electronic CounterMeasures) pods under the wings

The RAAF website has some details

[Derek 2.0]

As I was saying the other day about stealth, this article also quotes Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations saying

And said article is lacking in context, as full spectrum "stealth" was never truly intended to be a magic bullet, but a progression in capability..........despite night vision and other modern surveillance methods, armies still issue their troops camouflage.......camouflage in itself has advanced from olive drab uniforms of the first world war to the modern digital patterns we see today.........stealth is merely camouflage.

With regards to the CNO remarks, he was addressing the notion that the USN can't only rely upon "stealth" (be the stealth of a sub, a modern destroyer or an aircraft) to deliver short ranged weapons, instead the entire force needs to address its shortfall in longer range standoff munitions.

I am not sure however that we want to work with a US navy program, for the same reason the F-35 is such a dog. The US navy requires that aircraft be able to takeoff and land on aircraft carriers. While this is not quite as bad as the VTOL requirement from the US marines that completely destroyed the F-35, it generally dictates much heavier landing gear and larger wing surface. If there is enough volume from non-navy purchases, then perhaps variants will be created to the basic airframe. Canada would be better to partner with other airforces that have similar requirements to our own.

Inversely, aircraft designed for naval service, with the very attributes that you mentioned (in addition to an overall stronger airframe) will typically last longer (when used from shore bases) then aircraft designed for land bases.....case in point, the "longevity" of our Hornets and those of the USMC (which do operate partially from carriers) versus the USN's hornets of the same vintage (largely all retired now).........or the F-4 Phantom, which still serves several first world nations air forces, due in part to its rugged naval design....in many cases out lasting far newer land based aircraft like the F-16 and Mirage III....

[?Impact]

Canada did not buy Super Hornets a decade ago...preferring to extend the service life for its old CF-188s. What was wrong with the Super Hornet back then ?

CF-188 - that is an old name, never made it to the deployed aircraft as far as I know. They have been known as CF-18 since before delivery.

I expect "back then" they were not expecting the delays that have plagued the F-35.

[Derek 2.0]

The problem as you point out with the F-18L was that no other nation was committed to it so we would be funding development. The F-16 was winning all the contracts, and Canadian military brass had an aversion to a single engine fighter

That's not the case, our selection of the Hornet over the (cheaper) F-16 was based on the early versions of the F-16s lacking a radar capable of guiding medium range missiles......a requirement we had to intercept Soviet bombers through NORAD.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, the Super Hornet's are there because Australia was not confident in the FA-35 delivery. They have 72 F-35As on order, expected to be operational by 2023.

Nope...they were originally procured by Australia because the F-111 fleet was retired.