Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Smallc]

Of course seeing as this government has met with Boeing 12 times, they obviously have an idea about timeline.

[bush_cheney2004]

Possibly - as of the fall, the US Navy was paying far less for a Super Hornet than the US airforce was for the F-35A.

The USN and USAF have pockets that are a lot deeper than Canada's. They can buy both, and develop new aircraft at the same time.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course seeing as this government has met with Boeing 12 times, they obviously have an idea about timeline.

Boeing has a much bigger customer back home....they meet a lot more often.

[Smallc]

The USN and USAF have pockets that are a lot deeper than Canada's. They can buy both, and develop new aircraft at the same time.

As is often the case, that's irrelevant to your initial argument.

[bush_cheney2004]

As is often the case, that's irrelevant to your initial argument.

Oh, I get it....numerous references to USN, USAF, USMC, GAO and other American agencies are always relevant to a Canadian procurement process that lacks planning, transparency, due diligence, or timely execution....and changes with each election. Good luck with that !

[?Impact]

Can I just paint my old aircraft to make it fifth generation? The Pentagon had several excuses for the F-35 losing to the F-16 in the dogfight in January 2015. Most were related to software upgrades, but one was: AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. There was talk a few years ago about a company out of Israel call Nanoflight that developed a paint that would: The nanocoating achieves its radar trickery by absorbing the radio waves emitted by the radar and scattering them as heat energy enough so that when the radar gets the bounced back signal it is not regular enough to indicate an object.

I don't see anything recent on Nanoflight, but no doubt technology like this would be kept under tight wraps. The question is how long before I can head out to Home Depot and pick up a $49.95 gallon of stealth paint and make my aircraft invisible? It might work well on my car as well to sail through police speed traps.

Edited June 11, 2016 by ?Impact

[bush_cheney2004]

Can I just paint my old aircraft to make it fifth generation?

Only if it will make the airframe smaller and more maneuverable. Aggressor training squadrons have long featured older, smaller, lighter aircraft for "dog fight" training. Canada's last air combat kill was during the Korean War (middle of the last century)....probably a licensed build CL-13 Sabre (F-86 Sabre).

[Derek 2.0]

It is worth noting that the problems the navy has reported occur equally in the old Hornet, the same aircraft the Canada currently flies CF-18. While the new Super Hornet has an onboard oxygen generation system (OBOGS), the old one relies on bottled liquid oxygen like the F-16. While there was some initial blaming on the OBOGS, it is not clear that is the cause.

Apples to oranges, as the issues associated with the USMC's legacy Hornets are due to salt water corrosion is the filtration system.......problems not found in ours or other users......... overall corrosion is endemic among both the legacy and Super Hornet fleets, due namely to the aircraft being one of the first to make extensive use of composites, which resulted in McDonnell Douglas and the USN designing the aircraft on the cheap with reduced corrosion treatments found on other aircraft......combine this with the aircraft only being intended to be interim (cheap) replacements which led to the aircraft only be engineered for ~6500 hours of service.....there should be no surprise they are having a hell of a time with them.

At the end of the day, the Super Hornet only got built because of the resignation of the Secretary of the Navy over the tailhook scandal, which resulted in then Sec-Def Dick Cheney appointing Secretary Sean "the Grim Reaper" O'Keefe......who was then firmly drinking the Super Hornet Kool Aide and the promise that it would be a cheaper option then rebuilding the A-6 fleet........this was further compounded by Clinton era cuts, and the decision to replace the A-6 and F-14 fleets with an aircraft that had less range then both, and was even slower and less agile then the legacy Hornets.....which then still needed a new engine, alterations to the aircraft to prevent "wing drop" and "buffeting", potentially lethal problems with the oxygen system and an engineered short lifespan............Sign me up

There is a reason the Super Hornet is called the Rhino, and its not a term of endearment.

[waldo]

“The good-faith intent … was that Canada will buy aircraft and they will be allowed to participate in the supply chain,” Crisler said. ““There’s not an entitlement to future contracts unless you’re buying aircraft.”

thanks for confirming what I said... notwithstanding you have the gall to actually source a LockMart VP - heeelarious!

Again, per the U.S. Pentagon's Undersecretary of Acquisition, Frank Kendall: Pentagon official casts more doubt on Harper’s dire F-35 industry warning

Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defence for acquisition, told reporters in Fort Worth, Tex., on Tuesday that he can’t see why the existing $637 million in contracts wouldn’t remain with Canadian firms.

“I believe those suppliers are part of the team, I don’t see any reason why they would not continue to be part of the team whether Canada buys jets or not,” Kendall was quoted as saying by the web site DefenceNews.

“We make our decisions on participation based on best value and if Canadian firms are still best value, then they will be part of the program.”

.

[waldo]

This is a role that Canada's diesel electric submarines serve well, when they are seaworthy. Another fine Liberal PM contribution to DND...hmmm...is there a trend here ?

the failed U.S. military procurement system so broken the call went out for... Watson! --- like I keep challenging you, any time you'd like to have a draw-down on U.S. versus Canadian procurement failures! Any time!

.

[waldo]

To that point, there is no guarantee that procurement and deployment of USN Super Hornets by Canada will be without many, costly issues. Sorry, but in this game, if you have to ask how much, probably can't afford it.

profound! Uhhh... wait a minute now... you could throw that comment out against any option. It's a good thing the F-35 would be isolated from any of that "generic" concern you raise!

.

[waldo]

Sorry, but in this game, if you have to ask how much, probably can't afford it.

uhhh... about those regular hearings of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee... what do they keep asking? And the Pentagon... it keeps asking! And the respective branches of the U.S. military... yup, they keep asking. A whole lotta, 'probably can't afford it' going on, hey! By the by, do you have the numbers... the revised numbers... for the actual numbers the USAF, USN and USMC will be purchasing?

.

[waldo]

The line has at least another year - the USN has need for at least 29 more SH, unfunded to this point. That would give it another couple of years.

and Kuwait (24 Super Hornets): Why the U.S. Is About to Sell Billions in Boeing Fighter Jets to Qatar/Kuwait

Both the Pentagon and State Department have signed off on the separate deals, which would send 36 Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets to Qatar and 24 Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to Kuwait.

I've read a few references that are speaking to the Kuwait sale as actually the 'Advanced Super Hornet'... but I've not found definitive confirmation.

11 May, 2016 --- Boeing Defense has “matured its thinking” about the Advanced Super Hornet concept that it launched in 2013 and flight tested, revealing a scaled-back configuration this week with fewer stealth features and perhaps a greater chance of being picked up by the US Navy.

The new design, which would be mostly common between Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler warplanes, is a mix of new capabilities and upgrades like the centreline fuel tank-mounted infrared search and track (IRST21) sensor, integrated defensive electronic countermeasures (IDECM) Block IV, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and next-generation jammer that are already being introduced as programmes of records.

Boeing is also preparing to undertake an F/A-18E/F service life extension programme that would extend that carrier-based aircraft’s usability from 6,000 flight hours to 9,000h.

The US chief of naval operations recently told Congress that the maritime service needs 24-36 more Super Hornets to meet an acknowledged fighter capacity gap as the Lockheed Martin F-35 comes online six or seven years later than expected.

.

[?Impact]

aircraft only be engineered for ~6500 hours of service

I guess you are not familiar with the Service Life Assessment/Extension Programs. There has already been a program for the The F/A-18A-D which showed that the airframe can fly to 10,000 hours with a combination of modifications and inspections to maintain airworthiness. The goal is with the F/A-18E/F they will be able to achieve between 9,000 and 12,000 hours, although that remains to be seen.

The F-35s do have one significant advantage however, they spend so much time in the shop that they can't fly that many hours each year which will mean they can be around longer.

[waldo]

The USN and USAF have pockets that are a lot deeper than Canada's. They can buy both, and develop new aircraft at the same time.

don't forget sequestration, military cutbacks, military re-prioritization requirements given funding cuts... and the inherent

resistance of the USN to the F-35, etc.. America's Shrinking Military: The End of U.S. Primacy?

.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess you are not familiar with the Service Life Assessment/Extension Programs. There has already been a program for the The F/A-18A-D

....The F-35s do have one significant advantage however, they spend so much time in the shop that they can't fly that many hours each year which will mean they can be around longer.

Gee..that would explain why so many of Canada's clapped out CF-188's are already grounded and will never fly again. Cannibalized for spares. Active squadrons have slashed training flights to keep airframe hours to a minimum.

Edited June 11, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

I guess you are not familiar with the Service Life Assessment/Extension Programs. There has already been a program for the The F/A-18A-D which showed that the airframe can fly to 10,000 hours with a combination of modifications and inspections to maintain airworthiness. The goal is with the F/A-18E/F they will be able to achieve between 9,000 and 12,000 hours, although that remains to be seen.

The F-35s do have one significant advantage however, they spend so much time in the shop that they can't fly that many hours each year which will mean they can be around longer.

Quite the opposite, I'm close friends with one of the engineers at Northrop's Integrated Systems and Aerostructures division, that was on the design team for the legacy Hornets center barrel upgrade and both Hornets center/aft fuselage production team....structurally, both aircraft are as sound, after years of exposure to the elements and decades of cat/trap cycles, as a '85 Ford Tempo.........if the upgrades were going as swimmingly as you suggest, the USNR and USMC wouldn't be facing a crisis with their legacy fleet, and the USN wouldn't be reducing operational hours on the Super Hornets and sending the eldest ones to the desert.

The F-35, like most other aircraft still in production, were engineered with upwards of 9000 hours of life, discounting any costly upgrade program.....and even then, the USAF only finished retiring the early blocks of F-15s (The Hornets big brother) about 5 years ago, after 30-35 years of service, nearly double that of current Super Hornets facing a costly midlife upgrade, and only after ~30+ years of service was it found that a portion of the F-15 fleet was starting to develop structural problems..........after never receiving a midlife upgrade with a service life more then double that of the Hornets.........

But returning to naval aircraft, the Tomcats and intruders, aircraft the Super Hornet replaced in the same service environment and roles, even still had nearly twice the service life, minus a costly midlife upgrade, as the Hornets.........

With that all being said, assuming the Super Hornets were able to be upgraded to ~10k hours, at current rates of use, they will be lucky to make it into the 2030s, let alone the 2040s as suggested by smallc........simple math really, if the aircraft have used up their engineered lives in 15 years service today, less than doubling their service hour lives through a SLEP, will not produce a result indicative of 20+ years of additional service........

[Smallc]

It's not suggested by me - it's stated clearly by the USN, as recent as April:

The Navy had been planning for the Super Hornets to serve well into the 2030s, but now service leaders say that timeline will need to extend into the 2040s.

http://www.defensetech.org/2015/04/22/navy-leans-toward-building-more-super-hornets-after-f-35c-delays/?mobile=1

So we're beyond talking about 2035 and 2040 - we're almost to hearing the 2045 and 2050 numbers. The Super Hornet is going to be here for decades. Boeing in fact, estimates that the USN will need 100 more Super Hornets. The USN knows it needs more, and that's why it keeps throwing enough work to keep the line open.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

So now we're looking at the aircraft flying for almost 35 more years. That's why there's a stated need for at least 29 more, in addition to the two funded additional aircraft this year. 12 of those aircraft are set for funding next fiscal year.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Smallc

[Smallc]

BTW, Boeing claims 9500 hours of service in land based forces. The 6000 hour figure you keep pushing is meaningless to Canada.

[Derek 2.0]

BTW, Boeing claims 9500 hours of service in land based forces. The 6000 hour figure you keep pushing is meaningless to Canada.

Bullshit......aircraft structural load factors on any aircraft are determined by how the aircraft is flown...~9500 hours might be realistic if the aircraft is flown like a Westjet commuter....carrier cycles and a maritime environment will wear out parts of the aircraft faster, namely stress on the landing gear and corrosion, but not to the degree that you suggest........case in point, the USN still retains aircraft for utility and training roles after they reach a point where then can no longer perform cat/traps on a carrier, but are still safe to fly from land bases..........or why a typical airliner or the B-52 can easily do 30000+ hours versus a third that by typical fighter.

~9500 hours is the figure post center barrel upgrade

[bush_cheney2004]

So now we're looking at the aircraft flying for almost 35 more years. That's why there's a stated need for at least 29 more, in addition to the two funded additional aircraft this year. 12 of those aircraft are set for funding next fiscal year.

Those numbers/years will likely change upon successful qualification and deployment of F-35C squadrons. It is not a static projection, and other fiscal realities may require draw downs of existing force levels. AMARC @ Davis-Monthan amply demonstrates how fast aircraft types can go to the scrap yard. Canada would be betting on a much longer F-18 service life with associated, rising support costs.

Will we ever get to see actual DND numbers, or will this always be a "USN" numbers game ?

Edited June 12, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

So now we're looking at the aircraft flying for almost 35 more years. That's why there's a stated need for at least 29 more, in addition to the two funded additional aircraft this year. 12 of those aircraft are set for funding next fiscal year.

There is no flying the type for 35 years......the majority of the USN fleet has reached their 6000 hours or are approaching it in less than ~15 years of service.......even if they were able to double it to 12k hours, and reduced usage (as has been done by 1/3rd) they will be lucky reach 2030......that is simple math......any Super Hornet flying after that will be Growlers and the handful of Super Hornets obtained in this decade.

[Smallc]

There is no flying the type for 35 years......the majority of the USN fleet has reached their 6000 hours or are approaching it in less than ~15 years of service.......even if they were able to double it to 12k hours, and reduced usage (as has been done by 1/3rd) they will be lucky reach 2030......that is simple math......any Super Hornet flying after that will be Growlers and the handful of Super Hornets obtained in this decade.

Tell that to the USN - nothing to see here people, move along.

[Smallc]

Bullshit......aircraft structural load factors on any aircraft are determined by how the aircraft is flown...~9500 hours might be realistic if the aircraft is flown like a Westjet commuter....carrier cycles and a maritime environment will wear out parts of the aircraft faster, namely stress on the landing gear and corrosion, but not to the degree that you suggest........case in point, the USN still retains aircraft for utility and training roles after they reach a point where then can no longer perform cat/traps on a carrier, but are still safe to fly from land bases..........or why a typical airliner or the B-52 can easily do 30000+ hours versus a third that by typical fighter.

~9500 hours is the figure post center barrel upgrade

You'll have to let Boeing know.