F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[SupersonicMax]

I did not fly a demo sim.  It was for tactics development.

Can you expand on the backend investment from the Int community? (And Lockheed is delivering)

Yup, it is 0.77 right now,  it may not be in 2-3 years when we actually buy them. 

1.7B over 50 years is peanuts.  This aircraft (or any we buy) will be a long term investment, at least as long as the Hornet.

 

[Altair]

4 what?  AIM-120C, AIM-120D, GBU-38, GBU-31, JSOW...?

I have no idea what type, I only follow general facts about the different aircraft.

What people are saying is that the F 35 can carry a lot of missles/bombs externally but is limited to 4 missles using its internal weapons bay.

The concern I've heard is that while using the external hard points it negates it's main advantage, stealth. At that point, isn't it just a 4.5 anyways?

 

[SupersonicMax]

The F-35 will be able to carry 2 AIM-120s with either 2X2000 lbs, 4x500 lbs or 16xSDBs internally.  Right now, we can carry 1XAIM-120 with 2X2000 lbs or 6x500 lbs (reduced range, need to remove a fuel tank) all externally.  In a permissive environment, it will be able to carry 2xAIM-120, 6x2000 lbs, 12x500 lbs or 96 SDBs (externally, like the Hornet does now).

5th Gen is a lot more than Stealth.

 

[Baz]

Can you expand on the backend investment from the Int community? (And Lockheed is delivering)

DND is just now learning the cost of the new sensors in Aurora and Cyclone to support the back end stuff like libraries...

You can say that will all come from the US, but that has a cost in either dollars, dependency,  or political capital. 

DND is also just now starting to learn the cost of having a full up targeting enterprise... and that isn't just having an "ISR" aircraft.  Relying on US/UK/FRA and to a certain extent AUS has a cost.  We own the bomb no matter who built the package ( my perspective is as a targeting staff officer at SHAPE).  Pseudo quotes from the ACC Ramstein A6,  who was the Odyssey  Dawn ISR: everybody is buying shiny aircraft but nobody is paying the true cost of targeting. .. the F35 is going to require so much more resources to make it an "ISR" platform.

Nothing is free. Having said that, I'd rather we have an aircraft capable of doing these things if we intend to be expeditionary, and then we can choose to pay for them if we want.

The Liberal position in the election is interesting: it's not in our best interest to be using expeditionary air power because it doesn't solve anything.  If we adopt that strategic position then the next RCAF fighter looks very different...

 

[dapaterson]

I did not fly a demo sim.  It was for tactics development.

Until there is an operational aircraft to model, the F35 simulator is a tech demo.  Saying "This is what we think the aircraft may be able to do in the future" is not a simulator.

Can you expand on the backend investment from the Int community? (And Lockheed is delivering)

Baz has provided an excellent bit of perspective on this (better than I could)

Yup, it is 0.77 right now,  it may not be in 2-3 years when we actually buy them. 

1.7B over 50 years is peanuts.  This aircraft (or any we buy) will be a long term investment, at least as long as the Hornet.

Given the state of DND's Investment Plan, I am not as sanguine as you that $1.7B is "peanuts", nor that it's affordable within the years needed, nor that this $1.7B will be the only issue arising which will require contingency funding to address.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Until there is an operational aircraft to model, the F35 simulator is a tech demo.  Saying "This is what we think the aircraft may be able to do in the future" is not a simulator.

I have flow Block 2B and 3i in their then current states so it was a simulator (the physical aircraft was already built and software was already written).  I was able to see the software issues (as it was a simulation) and was able to make my own mind regarding the glossy brochure vs the reality.

Baz has provided an excellent bit of perspective on this (better than I could)

In short, nothing that we don't already need.

Given the state of DND's Investment Plan, I am not as sanguine as you that $1.7B is "peanuts", nor that it's affordable within the years needed, nor that this $1.7B will be the only issue arising which will require contingency funding to address.

This issue could arise no matter what we buy.  This is market risk and depending on when we pay for the aircraft, our dollar may be strong or weak vs the buying currency.  Nothing saying that in 3-4 years our dollar won't be 1.10 USD...  In which case we may as well buy 6 more.

 

[Kirkhill]

Until there is an operational aircraft to model, the F35 simulator is a tech demo.  Saying "This is what we think the aircraft may be able to do in the future" is not a simulator.

Baz has provided an excellent bit of perspective on this (better than I could)

Given the state of DND's Investment Plan, I am not as sanguine as you that $1.7B is "peanuts", nor that it's affordable within the years needed, nor that this $1.7B will be the only issue arising which will require contingency funding to address.

DAP - if I understand the situation it is no longer a case of build the Spitfire, build the Link trainer.  The reverse is the case.  It is describe the logic, build the simulator, confirm the logic, build the aircraft and re-confirm the logic.

I don't think you can build these computer flown aircraft any other way.

 

[MarkOttawa]

LockMart building:

$1.2 billion plant upgrade: Lockheed prepares for F-35 take off

...the Fort Worth plant is in the midst of a $1.2 billion upgrade — its biggest since the F-16 was developed in the 1970s — to support the aggressive production schedule.

Inside the mile-long facility, sections of the production line are draped in heavy plastic as new assembly areas are being installed. Outside, workers dangle from portable lifts as they refurbish nine hangars with plans to possibly build two more.

"We have lots of construction (underway)," said Lorraine Martin, Lockheed's general manager for the F-35 program. "We're building more structures on the flight line, more run stations, more engine run locations, the ability to have more aircraft in our paint shop...
http://www.theledger.com/article/20151012/news/151019887

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Pentagon's air superiority challenges:

The U.S. Military's 'Top Guns' in the Air Have a Big Weakness
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-militarys-top-guns-the-air-have-big-weakness-14065

Does the U.S. Navy Need a 21st Century F-14 Tomcat? [esp. vs China]
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/does-the-us-navy-need-21st-century-f-14-tomcat-14063

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Altair]

So if the conservatives lose what other planes could be bought that would work for Canada? 

Looks like the Gripen and Rafale are out as options.

 

[PuckChaser]

That leaves super hornet, pak-fa from Russia, j-20 from china, or we let that crackpot on Facebook build a fictitious plane based on the Arrow. All terrible options.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Freedom (From Risk) Fighter  8)

 

[WingsofFury]

Super Hornet...one of JT's leading candidates was a Hornet pilot (not an upgraded Hornet) who was recently trying to convince everyone online that the Super Hornet was the better option for Canada.

I wonder now what the implications of a SH buy will be....while the rest of the world continues to use more upgraded equipment.

Just once I'd like to see something cutting edge bought...

 

[Baz]

Just once I'd like to see something cutting edge bought...

I'd like to see a coherent defence policy, with some logical defence requirements, and then purchase the equipment and support to meet those requirements.

 

[MarkOttawa]

WingsofFury: Boeing making SH pitch:

Boeing Offers New, Rebuilt, Upgraded Super Hornets To U.S. Navy

Boeing is offering the U.S. Navy a plan that includes continued long-term production of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to alleviate a major projected shortfall in the service’s strike-fighter numbers and keep the force capable until a replacement is fielded, in the mid-2030s or later.

The Navy’s oldest Super Hornet fleet will reach its 6,000-hr. design lifetime in 2017. The rest of the fleet will follow at approximately the rate they were acquired—around 40 per year—but the Navy can afford 20 Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighters each year, at most, and may buy fewer than that.

To fill this gap, Boeing is inspecting high-time Super Hornets in support of a service-life extension program (SLEP) that would extend the fighter’s life to 9,000 hr. But Navy commander for aviation Vice Adm. Mike Shoemaker said in August that maintaining the force through a SLEP alone is “not an inconsequential challenge.” If no new F/A-18s are built, rebuilt Super Hornets could account for 60% of the strike-fighter force by 2030, Navy documents show. Industry officials say that SLEP will not be enough: “It helps,” says one, “but it doesn’t get you there.”

The answer is a “holistic, integrated solution” combining SLEP, new production and upgrades, according to Dan Gillian, Boeing’s F/A-18E/F and EA-18G programs vice president.

Boeing’s plan—which does not envisage cuts to the F-35C buy—would continue new production well into the next decade. SLEP and new production create opportunities to insert upgrades into the fleet while increasing the payback period for the initial investment. The company is no longer using the Advanced Super Hornet name but instead is briefing the Navy on an “enhanced Hornet flightpath,” with a menu of possible upgrades including conformal fuel tanks, an improved engine and a widescreen cockpit...
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-offers-new-rebuilt-upgraded-super-hornets-us-navy

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'd like to see a coherent defence policy, with some logical defence requirements, and then purchase the equipment and support to meet those requirements.

That would pretty much be a unique event in Canadian history. So far it appears both the US and the Aussies are opting for a mixed fleet of F-35's and SH. admittedly to perform different tasks in the Aussie case. Now a Mixed fleet of the two with 80 aircraft would make me happy. Start to replace the SH fleet after 15 years for another airframe and then replace 1/2 the fleet every 15-20 years.

 

[WingsofFury]

As I've stated before....give me SLAM Eagles and -35's.

With regards to the Super Hornets...our current legacy fleet of Hornets are a better platform then the SH's.

Late edit - in the sense that we can carry a versatile paylod and, according to pilots I have spoken with, can more than handle a SH in a dogfight.

 

[dimsum]

I'd like to see a coherent defence policy, with some logical defence requirements, and then purchase the equipment and support to meet those requirements.

It won't happen unless the powers that be give up the notion that the US will always defend us out of their own good will (not to be confused with self-interest). 

 

[CBH99]

WingsofFury,

You've stated that our current legacy Hornets are a better platform than the Super Hornet.  How so?

Other than being an enthusiast, I have no real experience or technical knowledge beyond what one can read online.  I'm curious about your take on it (And Supersonicmax too) - and whoever else can speak of it from an experienced perspective. 

How are the legacy Hornets we have now, better platforms than the SH?

 

[Kirkhill]

As I've stated before....give me SLAM Eagles and -35's.

With regards to the Super Hornets...our current legacy fleet of Hornets are a better platform then the SH's.

Late edit - in the sense that we can carry a versatile paylod and, according to pilots I have spoken with, can more than handle a SH in a dogfight.

Rather than focusing on the truck perhaps some time should be spent on the cargo.  What will the aircraft carry inside and under its wings.

Air launched ordnance is nothing more than single use UAVs with varying levels of intelligence.  The power pack (rocket, jet, prop or gravity) determines its speed and range.  Various sensors and comms and loads of HE can be attached.  They don't need to worry about manoeuvring within the physiological limits of a pilot. 

So how come we spend so much angst on the platform and virtually no effort is spent on the armaments?