Still Going to Buy the F-35, Really?

[Smallc]

Oh, and the Navy wants more EA-18 Growlers.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, and the Navy wants more EA-18 Growlers.

Canada's Navy ? I don't think so.....

[Smallc]

Canada's Navy ? I don't think so.....

Yeah, no.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yeah, no.

OK....it's easy to lose track here, as there is so much more discussion of what other countries are actually designing, building, or buying compared to the actual topic. I guess that's a good way to kill more time waiting for...well...you know.

[Derek 2.0]

did rubber finally hid the road?

.

Did you read the article.........despite being lousy with countless inaccuracies, from your link:

Holmes cautioned that a final decision is still "a long way off" and that future budgets would determine what the future of the close air-support aircraft will look like.

As noted numerous times, absent an increase in funding, obtaining new niche aircraft (or keeping existing aircraft) is not in the cards with the USAF, which is in the process of near entire fleet renewal in the decade(s) ahead.

------------

With regards to Canada though, I don't see the connection with this story, as this Government has withdrawn from the anti-ISIS bombing mission, likewise has deferred replacing our current Hornets until the next decade.

[Derek 2.0]

OK....it's easy to lose track here, as there is so much more discussion of what other countries are actually designing, building, or buying compared to the actual topic. I guess that's a good way to kill more time waiting for...well...you know.

A whole bunch of "dead-air" to fill between now and 2020-2021

[waldo]

OK....it's easy to lose track here, as there is so much more discussion of what other countries are actually designing, building, or buying compared to the actual topic. I guess that's a good way to kill more time waiting for...well...you know.

it is relevant; however it does fill the gap between your posts that continue to highlight your mega big-time interest in Canada's pursuit why forever decrying anyone showing interest in the related pursuits of the respective branches of the U.S. military. Is not "sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander"?

.

[waldo]

Did you read the article.........

apparently, you chose not to! Let's recap - simple Yes or No will suffice:

- are you suggesting the F-35 was never intended to replace the A-10?

- are you suggesting the years long Congressional-level 'give & take' concerning the A-10 had nothing to do with the forever delays and questionable capabilities of the F-35?

- are you suggesting the USAF wasn't pressured into finally scheduling that "testing face-off" between the F-35 and the A-10?

- are you now stating, unequivocally, that the F-35 is still intended to replace the A-10?

.

[bush_cheney2004]

A whole bunch of "dead-air" to fill between now and 2020-2021

Indeed...or it is just paving the way for another prolonged and default selection of a U.S. Navy, carrier based strike fighter, just like before. It's easy to make decisions that way.....Go Navy !

[waldo]

Indeed...or it is just paving the way for another prolonged and default selection of a U.S. Navy, carrier based strike fighter, just like before. It's easy to make decisions that way.....Go Navy !

you've already had your continued "Go Navy" talking point busted - yet you continue. 6 countries chose/flew/fly the Hornet from land bases; another 9 countries without carriers have also evaluated the Hornet in their ultimate purchase choices. Why... the U.S. Navy itself has flown the Hornet/Super Hornet from land bases! Who knew!!!

.

[Derek 2.0]

- are you suggesting the F-35 was never intended to replace the A-10?

No.

- are you suggesting the years long Congressional-level 'give & take' concerning the A-10 had nothing to do with the forever delays and questionable capabilities of the F-35?

Yes, as in its a far more nuanced issue then you suggest.

- are you suggesting the USAF wasn't pressured into finally scheduling that "testing face-off" between the F-35 and the A-10?

Yes, since said "face-off" is a standard produce for all new aircraft entering service......a like face-off was conducted over 40 years ago between the A-10 and the aircraft it replaced (A-1E) or supplemented (A-7).........so Yes

- are you now stating, unequivocally, that the F-35 is still intended to replace the A-10?

Maybe, that's dependent on funding (as noted in your article).......I would lean toward a partial yes, in that most of the force (USAF/Reserve/Air National Guard) will be replaced by the F-35 regardless, with a portion (the current A-10 force dedicated to special operations and combat search and rescue) being replaced by a combination of the current (and their replacements) AC-130 gunships (an aircraft that your article suggests doesn't exist) and if funding is there, something like a small buy of the Super Tucano...........which funny enough, the base housing these two current A-10 CSAR squadrons in Georgia, also trains Afghan air force pilots on the Super Tucano...

So I'll answer yes, absent new money added to the USAF budget.

[bush_cheney2004]

....So I'll answer yes, absent new money added to the USAF budget.

Not likely to happen....the USAF already has at least two multi-role strike fighter platforms, two air superiority platforms, two heavy bomber platforms, as well as multiple tankers, medium airlift, heavy airlift, and unmanned aircraft types. They are feeling the budget squeeze with more sacrifices to be made, no matter how unpopular with the war fighters. The A-10 debate is more about mission gap, not nostalgia for any particular platform.

If this U.S. discussion fills the void in any substantive or meaningful (but dysfunctional) Canadian CF-188 replacement process, at least it demonstrates the hard choices that have to be made even when a very large development and procurement budget is authorized by the government.

Canada's decision is far more simple...but still it struggles mightily.

[Derek 2.0]

Not likely to happen....

Without a doubt, and this is just a demonstration of how poorly written and researched the article is, betraying its underlining tones as yet another poorly informed F-35 hit job..........simply put, the aircraft they mention as a replacement for the A-10 (Tucano, reborn OV-10) were born out of a requirement put forth by the Bush administration (OA-X), which under the Obama administration (LAAR or light attack/armed reconnaissance) was later canceled.........at no time was said program intended to replace the (O)A-10 fleet, but add a capability to the USAF (and USN for the SEALS) that was faster than an attack/reconnaissance helicopter in a benign environment like an Afghanistan.

Fast forward to today and the fight against ISIS, and the attempt to bring back the cancelled program, not as a new capability, but as a low cost replacement for a portion of the (O)A-10 fleet.........and the result, a poorly researched article suggesting the A-10 will not be replaced by the F-35, but by a warmed over turboprop trainer intended for counter insurgency warfare........I'd love to hear how a Tucano would fair as an A-10 replacement with US forces in Korea for example, with the intended role of blunting 1000s of North Korean tanks........

[bush_cheney2004]

Without a doubt, and this is just a demonstration of how poorly written and researched the article is, betraying its underlining tones as yet another poorly informed F-35 hit job......

Right...it's just another attempt to find anything that will stick against the wall of F-35 criticism, even if it means platforms that Canada doesn't even operate. If the CAS mission was such a high priority for Canadian Forces, it would have more than the current inventory of aging U.S. Navy, carrier based strike fighters.

[waldo]

If this U.S. discussion fills the void in any substantive or meaningful (but dysfunctional) Canadian CF-188 replacement process, at least it demonstrates the hard choices that have to be made even when a very large development and procurement budget is authorized by the government.

Right...it's just another attempt to find anything that will stick against the wall of F-35 criticism, even if it means platforms that Canada doesn't even operate. If the CAS mission was such a high priority for Canadian Forces, it would have more than the current inventory of aging U.S. Navy, carrier based strike fighters.

no 'void filling', none at all! It is always highly relevant to point out related shifts/changes within the various U.S. military branches... most pointedly when they reflect upon forced shifts/changes due to impacting delays in the F-35 program and/or realized gaps in F-35 capabilities - both of which apply in this A-10 regard.

as for your continued (and purposeful) labeling of the Hornet as "Navy carrier based"... per your initial labeling, always intended as some kind of bizarro slight towards Canada's choice... keep on keepin on! Canada is in the company of 15 non-carrier nations that either bought or kicked the tires in reviewing the Hornet/Super Hornet... along with the U.S. Navy that has also chosen to fly the Hornet/Super Hornet from land bases in the past. Keep on doing what you're so good at!

.

[waldo]

So I'll answer yes, absent new money added to the USAF budget.

beauty! The A-10 was always included in that grouping of aircraft the F-35 was intended to replace... from the onset. There was never, as I'm aware, any suggestion that "gap requirements testing" would determine the ultimate replacement intent for the A-10... or any of the other aircraft in that replacement grouping.

when budget reality finally set in and continued year-upon-year-upon year delays in the F-35 program continued to mount, and capability gaps continued to be reinforced, the USAF finally agreed a formal "testing face-off" would be undertaken between the A-10 and the F-35... but not until 2018! But hey now, aren't you the guy forever talking up F-35 IOC combat ready dates (like you did for the the U.S. Marines trumped up IOC declaration)... like you've done for the USAF and the Aug 1, 2016 IOC (target) date! Why would that "testing faceoff" have to wait until 2018 if the USAF declares the F-35A combat ready on Aug 1? Things that make you go hmmmmmm!

so now we get the USAF coming forward indicating a new requirements statement/definition is being developed to allow the A-10 to be retired. And you maintain that (short of additional funding) it will STILL BE... the F-35! Oh my.

.

[Derek 2.0]

beauty! The A-10 was always included in that grouping of aircraft the F-35 was intended to replace... from the onset. There was never, as I'm aware, any suggestion that "gap requirements testing" would determine the ultimate replacement intent for the A-10... or any of the other aircraft in that replacement grouping.

.

Define "gap requirements testing"...........

when budget reality finally set in and continued year-upon-year-upon year delays in the F-35 program continued to mount, and capability gaps continued to be reinforced, the USAF finally agreed a formal "testing face-off" would be undertaken between the A-10 and the F-35... but not until 2018!

Repeating something doesn't make it true.........every current aircraft in the USAF inventory has been through similar tests with the aircraft it replaced, likewise, will go through testing yet again with it's replacement........if you would like to go into the weeds, I'll gladly provide you with current squadrons and establishments that provide said testing, for each in service USAF type............

But hey now, aren't you the guy forever talking up F-35 IOC combat ready dates (like you did for the the U.S. Marines trumped up IOC declaration)... like you've done for the USAF and the Aug 1, 2016 IOC (target) date! Why would that "testing faceoff" have to wait until 2018 if the USAF declares the F-35A combat ready on Aug 1? Things that make you go hmmmmmm!

That's easy, ~2018 is the IOC for the USAF's next generation close air support munitions, namely the next generation small diameter bomb and the joint air-to-ground missile....

so now we get the USAF coming forward indicating a new requirements statement/definition is being developed to allow the A-10 to be retired. And you maintain that (short of additional funding) it will STILL BE... the F-35! Oh my.

What new requirements? The article only spoke to recycled aircraft from a cancelled program.........none the less, your link states in closing, any decision is "a long way off" and predicated on future budgets..........and Waldo, you can play the miss quoting game if you want, but I really can't be bothered...........

I clearly said absent new money, a portion will be replaced by existing platforms already in service......platforms your article suggested didn't exist........with the remaining fighter squadrons being replaced with the F-35.

[waldo]

Repeating something doesn't make it true.........every current aircraft in the USAF inventory has been through similar tests with the aircraft it replaced, likewise, will go through testing yet again with it's replacement........if you would like to go into the weeds, I'll gladly provide you with current squadrons and establishments that provide said testing, for each in service USAF type............

That's easy, ~2018 is the IOC for the USAF's next generation close air support munitions, namely the next generation small diameter bomb and the joint air-to-ground missile....

What new requirements? The article only spoke to recycled aircraft from a cancelled program.........none the less, your link states in closing, any decision is "a long way off" and predicated on future budgets..........and Waldo, you can play the miss quoting game if you want, but I really can't be bothered...........

I clearly said absent new money, a portion will be replaced by existing platforms already in service......platforms your article suggested didn't exist........with the remaining fighter squadrons being replaced with the F-35.

perfect! So now you're going to slice&dice IOC dates? Just what kind of USAF 'combat ready' is being set for propaganda release with the upcoming Aug 2016 target date? You suggest 2018 as the IOC for "next generation CAS"??? This article speaks to 2022 - would you like a do-over => F-35 Will Not Reach Full Close-Air-Support Potential Until 2022 ... see 2022 scheduled Block 4A software requirement.

you can claim the 'face-off' testing between the A-10 and the F-35 is just 'natural happenstance'... that flies in the face of how it came about through the U.S. DoD's DOT&E - are you really sure you want to go there? It also flies in the face of the push-back received from top USAF officials who accept the need for CAS review/testing but are opposed to pitting the F-35 directly against the A-10... gee, I wonder why, hey! And, again, why bother with a new requirements definition for CAS towards, "building a new aircraft, using existing aircraft, or extending the life of the A-10" - wasn't that supposed to be the F-35, hey!

again, the point of this 'point of departure' is to highlight yet another bout of F-35 delay/capability impact... you know, something a person/body charged with evaluating available alternative aircraft options should be privy to and factor - wouldn't you think? Of course, we're still only talking about target schedules without regard to actual demonstrated result and capability, right?

.

[Derek 2.0]

perfect! So now you're going to slice&dice IOC dates? Just what kind of USAF 'combat ready' is being set for propaganda release with the upcoming Aug 2016 target date? You suggest 2018 as the IOC for "next generation CAS"??? This article speaks to 2022 - would you like a do-over => F-35 Will Not Reach Full Close-Air-Support Potential Until 2022 ... see 2022 scheduled Block 4A software requirement.

I didn't slice or dice anything, if the SDB II won't be integrated until 2022, the now expected out of service date of the A-10, the USAF will have to use the existing SDB I, like the RAAF intends to do........does the Waldo know when the A-10 is expected to receive the SDB II?

you can claim the 'face-off' testing between the A-10 and the F-35 is just 'natural happenstance'... that flies in the face of how it came about through the U.S. DoD's DOT&E - are you really sure you want to go there? It also flies in the face of the push-back received from top USAF officials who accept the need for CAS review/testing but are opposed to pitting the F-35 directly against the A-10... gee, I wonder why, hey! And, again, why bother with a new requirements definition for CAS towards, "building a new aircraft, using existing aircraft, or extending the life of the A-10" - wasn't that supposed to be the F-35, hey!

I claim nothing, I'm stating a fact, I will gladly "go there", do you want to go there?

again, the point of this 'point of departure' is to highlight yet another bout of F-35 delay/capability impact... you know, something a person/body charged with evaluating available alternative aircraft options should be privy to and factor - wouldn't you think? Of course, we're still only talking about target schedules without regard to actual demonstrated result and capability, right?

How is that? Has any of the suggested alternatives seen the SDB II integrated........or better yet, been suggested as a replacement for the A-10?*

*(the F-16 was suggested as an A-10 replacement, A-16, in the 80s but was dropped.......alas, the F-16 will no longer be produced in the time frame when this Liberal Government may purchase replacements for our current Hornet fleet, hence isn't much of an alternative)

[waldo]

I didn't slice or dice anything, if the SDB II won't be integrated until 2022, the now expected out of service date of the A-10, the USAF will have to use the existing SDB I

why yes you did! And you got the date wrong... by 4 years no less! You suggested 2018 as the IOC for "next generation CAS"! That's SDB II, of course. And that isn't the only weapon tied to that Block 4A software, is it? And again, that's simply a scheduled target date for the software - 2022. Given the mega problems with F-35 software and meeting past targets, there's little likelihood that date will be met. This is simply you being you - all along you puff-up the abilities of the F-35, hyping these fake/trumped up IOC 'combat ready' dates - of course you do. By the by, isn't it somewhat telling that the U.S. Marines F-35B has to be re-designed to actually carry the SDB II - oops! By the other by... didja know... the USAF and USN are currently having the F-15 and F-18 Super Hornet, respectively, integrated with the SDB II - that will be about 3-4 years ahead of that scheduled 2022 date for the F-35 - scheduled date!

.

I claim nothing, I'm stating a fact, I will gladly "go there", do you want to go there?

what a poser! Does dropping that link have anything to do with the point I made and challenged you on in regards to the U.S. DoD's DOT&E driver behind that "F-35 versus A-10 face-off"? You also managed to skirt right by the point about the top-dogs (even Bogdan) resisting the one-on-one... as the F-35 most certainly is not a match for the A-10 CAS capabilities... whether SDB I or SDB II (that you had wrong by 4 years... assuming the 2022 target schedule is even met). By the by, shouldn't they take that point about the F-35 replacing the A-10 off the JSF propaganda pieces, hey!

.

[Derek 2.0]

why yes you did! And you got the date wrong... by 4 years no less! You suggested 2018 as the IOC for "next generation CAS"! That's SDB II, of course. And that isn't the only weapon tied to that Block 4A software, is it?

I said approximately 2018, as in the IOC of the munitions themselves. With regards to the SDB II, as noted, it won't be fully integrated until ~2022, but has already begun integration testing on the F-35......and what organization conducts said testing? It wouldn't be the groups that will conduct the F-35/A-10 tests would it?

By the other by... didja know... the USAF and USN are currently having the F-15 and F-18 Super Hornet, respectively, integrated with the SDB II - that will be about 3-4 years ahead of that scheduled 2022 date for the F-35 - scheduled date!

Source with regards to the Super Hornet/SDB II........you see, NAVAIR says different

what a poser! Does dropping that link have anything to do with the point I made and challenged you on in regards to the U.S. DoD's DOT&E driver behind that "F-35 versus A-10 face-off"?

Yes, because you've suggested such testing isn't a regular occurrence.........clearly you're wrong.......the USAF does continual testing on all in service aircraft (Obviously to new aircraft entering service). This was already spoken to several weeks/months ago...........likewise, the USN/USMC with its aircraft, using some of the same ranges as the USAF, including their strike fighter tactics instructor program (also conducted in Nevada)........you know, your often go-to cultural reference in such topics

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Yes, because you've suggested such testing isn't a regular occurrence.........clearly you're wrong.......the USAF does continual testing on all in service aircraft (Obviously to new aircraft entering service). This was already spoken to several weeks/months ago...........likewise, the USN/USMC with its aircraft, using some of the same ranges as the USAF, including their strike fighter tactics instructor program (also conducted in Nevada)........you know, your often go-to cultural reference in such topics

No doubt, as the Americans and JSF partners will continue to do as they have done before....design, build, test...and deploy new aircraft to operational squadrons. And as always, the Canadian government will watch others do this while clutching its coin purse tightly, and it will remain the substitute topic for what is not happening in the way of CF-188 replacement aircraft.

More F-35 news content....Canada only watches while other nations are actually moving forward....

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/matthew-fisher-lower-cost-may-put-f-35s-on-radar-for-liberals-defence-strategy

[Derek 2.0]

More F-35 news content....Canada only watches while other nations are actually moving forward....

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/matthew-fisher-lower-cost-may-put-f-35s-on-radar-for-liberals-defence-strategy

Ha! I see Lockheed is now making several arguments tailored towards Canada's NORAD requirement:

The Joint Strike Fighter has only one engine, which critics say makes it is too dangerous to fly over the vast northern expanses. This assessment is at odds with the U.S. decision to base its entire over-the-pole fighter jet defence on the F-35 — as it has done for decades with the single engine F-16.

Two F-35 squadrons are to be based at the northernmost fighter jet base in the world near Fairbanks, Alaska. To accommodate the aircraft the USAF announced last week it would spend $500 million to upgrade the airfield. Similarly, Norway intends to fly only F-35s above the Arctic Circle. Canada’s other Arctic ally, Denmark, which sometimes sends fighter jets to Greenland, is likely to opt for the F-35 soon, too.

In addition:

The F-35 was a better choice for Canada in the Arctic than fourth-generation alternatives such as Boeing’s F-18 Super Hornet, Flynn said, because it had more sophisticated sensors, including passive and active radars that could spot intruders at a greater distance.

Greater distance in addition to making it harder for the intruder to detect it......what with "stealth" and all.

Having “stealth is a matter of survivability. If you don’t have it, you are an RCAF pilot who is not coming home,” said Flynn, who flew NORAD missions as did his father. “You need an aircraft that can sense them from a long way away and then prosecute them if and when that is required.

There was no other aircraft in the legacy fleets — and Flynn has flown the F-16, F-18 and Typhoon — that could do that, he said.

(Flynn's experience with Luftwaffe's Eurofighters was the subject of a Canadian doc in the later 1990s)

and in closing:

If Canada were to chose another aircraft, Flynn raised the prospect that Ottawa might have “to leave the country’s Arctic defence to allies” whose F-35s would be capable of dealing with a new generation of lethal long-range Russian missiles such as the S-400, which can strike targets hundreds of kilometres away.

And there it is........no F-35, means the Americans will have to defend Canada........how they see fit.

Interesting to (finally) hear these points raised by Lockheed........I've been pointing out these facts for years

[Smallc]

What a bunch of....No F-35 would change nothing, as there's no threat to Canada's territorial approaches. The only possible threat (Russia) would require the US to do as it sees fit anyway.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Interesting to (finally) hear these points raised by Lockheed........I've been pointing out these facts for years

Even more interesting is the Liberal government listening to Lock Mart because the price is getting cheaper. Funny how that works....going from no way Canada ever buys the F-35 "bomb truck" to "how much is that doggy in the window?".