F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[WingsofFury]

Hello everyone, some great news.

The contract for the first lot of LRIP 4 F-35A was awarded on Nov. 19/2010. The first aircraft of LRIP 4 was completely built and out the door from Lockheed Martin on Nov. 2/2011. The production of that single aircraft, which comes from the same LRIP lot which Canada is buying their F-35's at, cost $111M - almost $40M less than what the PBO forecasted when the lot was to be at peak production. As the number of LRIP 4 aircraft produced increases, the cost per aircraft will drop significantly.

Also, that cost didn't include the engine which for our variant will run $15M a piece.

I predict that the overall cost for a new LRIP 4 platform - complete with systems including comms - and the engine will cost about $85M a pop when the line is running at peak efficiency between 2017 and 2020.

Just don't let the PBO or other sceptics know...they might start to cry. 

 

[Haletown]

more current information,  much to much good news to read about  elsewhere

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/F-35-Fast-Facts-Nov-1-2011.pdf#F-35

 

[aesop081]

Just don't let the PBO or other sceptics know...they might start to cry. 

Far from it. Your math does not take into account what it will cost to bring LRIP aircraft to the final configuration as a result of all the DT&E and OT&E that remains to be done. As i have said before, producing LRIP aircraft can be a double-edged sword sometimes.

 

[Haletown]

more F-35 porn

http://www.nxtbook.com/faircount/F-35LightningII/JSFII/index.php#/16



If you are not registered with  DMN . . .

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/register/?member_type_id=1

 

[dapaterson]

more current information,  much to much good news to read about  elsewhere

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/F-35-Fast-Facts-Nov-1-2011.pdf#F-35

Perhaps a bit more convincing if it were not the manufacturer.

As well, they state # flights / # landings etc, but never provide the baseline target data - 5 flight is great if the target is 4, not so great if the target is 10.

 

[WingsofFury]

And some RCAF F-35 porn for the eyes...

A Case for the F-35 Lightning
by Tim Dunne

Introduction
The Canadian Government’s 16 July 2010 announcement that it was to replace the ageing CF-18 Hornet with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter (JSF) aircraft predictably attracted stern admonishment from Rideau Institute president Steven Staples, and from others who oppose military purchases.

Their objections revolve around their beliefs that Canada does not need a fifth generation (5G) combat aircraft; that there was the arbitrary selection of a single aircraft without a legitimate competitive process; and that the cost is excessive. They suggest that we purchase lesser aircraft, presumably for a lesser cost, if, indeed, they agree with a fighter aircraft acquisition program at all.

Typically, Canada squeezes all possible productivity out of its aircraft (and other military hardware) before they are retired. Witness the continued service of the Second World War DC-3 Dakota, acquired in 1943 and flown until 1988, and the Sea King maritime helicopter, which will celebrate its 50th year of service on 1 August 2013. Our current CF-18A Hornet fighter aircraft, purchased in the 1980s, will be nearly 40 years old when they are ultimately decommissioned and replaced. Rapidly becoming moribund in the air combat world, our Hornets would be dangerous vehicles in which to engage in fifth generation warfare. The aircraft is wearing out, and it needs to be replaced within five-to-ten years.

More at the following link

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo11/no4/55-dunne-eng.asp

 

[Kalatzi]

Looks like Christmas could be coming early ;D

Washington could scrap its F-35 jet purchase
link http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/washington-could-scrap-its-f-35-jet-purchase/article2236889/

Finally some potential sanity in Washington

I note with intrest that the x-45/47? UCAV has been passing all its tests with flying colours and I beleive it's taken all of about two years, as opposed tro decades to achive this.

To try to empathize, I can now imagine how the Horse cavalry guys felt when they heard about this new fangled "Tank"

 

[dimsum]

I note with intrest that the x-45/47? UCAV has been passing all its tests with flying colours and I beleive it's taken all of about two years, as opposed tro decades to achive this.

To try to empathize, I can now imagine how the Horse cavalry guys felt when they heard about this new fangled "Tank"

I use that quote (or something like that) all the time.  Glad to see someone else does too.

 

[IBM]

With all the current budget constraints on DND, this might not be an unlikely plan B should the F-35 get shitcanned:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Looks like Christmas could be coming early ;D

Washington could scrap its F-35 jet purchase
link http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/washington-could-scrap-its-f-35-jet-purchase/article2236889/

Finally some potential sanity in Washington

I note with intrest that the x-45/47? UCAV has been passing all its tests with flying colours and I beleive it's taken all of about two years, as opposed tro decades to achive this.

To try to empathize, I can now imagine how the Horse cavalry guys felt when they heard about this new fangled "Tank"

Are you trying to imply that either of these UCAVs are fighter replacements in our Strategic environment?  Could you enlighten me on how you feel that would be so? Be specific on how you feel a non-afterburning UCAV, weighing less than 10,000lbs, that is a pure strike weapon and that is unable to carry any air to air weapons and has never (to my knowledge) been tested north of 70N is the replacement for the CF-18?  How do you see the control segment working?  Who's satellites are we using?  How are we securing the ground segment from interdiction? 

 

[Loachman]

Looks like Christmas could be coming early ;D

Washington could scrap its F-35 jet purchase
To try to empathize, I can now imagine how the Horse cavalry guys felt when they heard about this new fangled "Tank"

Both horse and tank were/are just "rides".

Both horse and tank were/are manned.

It will be a while yet before any UAV pushes pilots out of cockpits in significant numbers.

 

[FSTO]

I have no dog in this hunt, but I hope that the RCAF has a plan b (Super Hornet?) just in case the F35 is a victim of the US budget crisis.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I have no dog in this hunt, but I hope that the RCAF has a plan b (Super Hornet?) just in case the F35 is a victim of the US budget crisis.

Depends who you believe in this story.....

If plans to replace Canada’s 30-year-old fighter jets with the F-35 stealth fighter fall through, Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino says he’ll be ready.

“Not only is there a plan B, but there is a plan A to ensure that we acquire the best possible equipment for our men and women,” Fantino told the House of Commons Wednesday.

But senior Conservative officials say there really isn’t a Plan B.

“Plan B is F-35s. Plan C is also F-35s,” one official said.

Fantino’s comments came as opposition politicians seized on reports U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta had warned American politicians if they didn’t find $1.2 trillion in savings soon, programs like the F-35 would have to be cancelled ....

Here's the full back and forth w/Fantino from Question Period yesterday:

Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Associate Minister of National Defence said that our allies understand the importance of the F-35 program. Apparently, he did not get their memos. The Americans are on the verge of withdrawing from the program entirely. Norway, Australia and the United Kingdom are also considering withdrawing, and the Netherlands has already backed out. It is quite clear that the government is not getting the message from our allies.  Will the government finally launch a transparent bidding process for a new plane?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is engaging in fearmongering about the importance of the F-35 program, a program that is critical to maintaining Canada's sovereignty, supporting our military men and women and creating aerospace jobs for Canadians. We are on track, we are on time and we are staying with the program.

Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP):  If the government would show leadership and demand that economic spinoff clauses be included in a bidding process for fighter jets, the Canadian industry would benefit from more jobs anyway. The government is saying that the price of the F-35s will drop once the factories making the planes are running full throttle, but that may never happen because we will likely be the only ones ordering these planes.  Why is this government so bent on wasting taxpayers' money on planes that no one wants? The F-35 program has stalled; does the government have a plan B for replacing our CF-18s?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, not only is there a plan B, but there is a plan A to ensure that we acquire the best possible equipment for our men and women. Moreover, we are one of nine international nations that are part of this program. It was the Liberal government of the day that got us involved in this to begin with.

Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, the point is that plan A is not working here. Yesterday the associate minister of defence claimed again that our allies “...understand the importance of this program”. Apparently, Mr. Speaker, he missed the memo. Let me share the news: Israel, Australia, Turkey, and Norway are all reconsidering their orders, and the Americans are talking about pulling out entirely. The Conservatives insist everything is fine.  The F-35 purchase has become a fiasco. When will the government admit its expensive mistake and put this boondoggle of a contract out to public tender?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, our government and our closest military allies understand the importance of this program to the protection of our sovereignty. Canada is not the only country among our closest allies warning critics of the damage their reckless plans would cause to our military and aerospace workers.  I am pleased that Secretary Panetta has taken a similar action to warn Congress of the reckless short-sighted implications such a proposal could have. If our opposition members had their way, they would cancel the equipment our air force agrees is the best it needs to do its job in safety and to key effect.

Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, it is the same line again. To the associate minister and the Prime Minister, living in denial is a dangerously expensive and irresponsible approach to military procurement.  The facts here are simple. The economics are simple. The government says the F-35 price tag will go down when the planes are in full production, but when we are the only ones ordering them, that price can only skyrocket.  If the Americans pull out of the F-35 program, this plane is unaffordable, so what is the government's backup plan? Why is the government hell-bent on blowing the budget on a plane that everyone else is walking away--

The Speaker:  The hon. Associate Minister of National Defence.

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely untrue. There is no indication that anybody is walking away from the F-35 program. The aircraft are coming off the production line. Pilots are flying them. They are being delivered to countries. Our program is on track and on time, and we are staying with it.

Also, from the PM during QP:

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, a number of our allies are now reviewing the F-35 contract, which means that the total number ordered may be lower than anticipated. The Americans themselves are facing a great challenge with this. Now we hear that the production of the plane may in fact be delayed.  I ask the Prime Minister, exactly what will it take to convince the government that this contract is one that needs to be reviewed by the Canadian government? We need to have a competition to produce the best possible price for the greatest possible Canadian security.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, it was the previous government that ran a competition to select a company internationally to create the next generation fighter plane.  The current CF-18s will begin to come to the end of their useful life in this decade. That is why we are proceeding with the purchase of new airplanes, with great support by the way from not just the men and women in uniform but also the industry.  I have heard no concrete suggestion on how we would proceed from the Liberal Party.

Hon. Bob Rae (Toronto Centre, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: Canada needs a new, real competition to meet our needs here in Canada, to meet the needs of the Canadian industry and to meet our security needs. That is what must be done. We need to look at how the facts are changing. The government is taking an ideological approach that makes no sense. That is the Liberal Party of Canada's concrete suggestion.

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, procuring the F-35s is supported not only by the Canadian Forces, but also by the aerospace industry in Canada, particularly in Quebec. The proposal to kill this industry makes no sense. That is why the Liberal Party is getting the cold shoulder.

 

[The Bread Guy]

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo11/no4/55-dunne-eng.asp

With all due respect to this author who knows how to do his job well based on experience, I'm intrigued to see an opinion piece on a pretty technical matter written for a military professional journal by a communications/PR expert.  I'd be less surprised to see a PR practitioner write about how the Government "sold" the project to the public, or how the media covered it, as opposed to detailing the hard technical merits.

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... in Halifax, according to the Globe & Mail:

Defence Minister Peter MacKay will be dealing with the future of the F-35 stealth fighter program when he meets Friday in Halifax with his American counterpart, Leon Panetta.

The U.S. Defence Secretary has expressed concern about the program as Washington deals with deep budget cuts, needing to find $1.2-trillion over the next 10 years. Failure by Democrats and Republicans to reach a compromise could put the fighter-jet program in jeopardy, he warned.

That message was heard loud and clear in Canada. MPs seized on Mr. Panetta’s comments, demanding answers from the government as to whether its F-35 program would be scrapped. (Canada is to purchase 65 of the new jets – a controversial decision with the opposition accusing the government of not sending out the multi-million-dollar contract to tender.)

Mr. MacKay will meet Mr. Panetta Friday at the third annual Halifax International Security Forum. The two men will be joined by Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino, who is responsible for procurement.

“They will be discussing bilateral defence issues as well as global developments,” Jay Paxton, the Defence Minister’s communications director, told The Globe Thursday. “As part of these discussions Minister MacKay, Associate Minister Fantino and Secretary of Defence Panetta will discuss the F35.”  ....

 

[WingsofFury]

With all due respect to this author who knows how to do his job well based on experience, I'm intrigued to see an opinion piece on a pretty technical matter written for a military professional journal by a communications/PR expert.  I'd be less surprised to see a PR practitioner write about how the Government "sold" the project to the public, or how the media covered it, as opposed to detailing the hard technical merits.

Interesting note, but to be fair, has any member of the military come out with language which is contrary to what the sitting government position on any matter is?

As for detailing hard technical merits of the program, I'm sorry - I didn't read anything in that article that describes any hard technical merits of the program in any way shape or form.  If that was the authors intent then he would be a subject matter specialist discussing how the DAS makes this aircraft much better than anything else in existence, or how the LO of the platform is a great feature to guard against things such as mobile SAM units.

The general public don't enjoy reading in depth articles about why this plane is part of what the AF needs*, they would rather hear reasons which aren't factual but easily remembered to help them come up with new reasons to dislike this acquisition.

*Personal point of view, one in favour of a multiple platform fleet which would mean greater investment in platforms, pilots, WSO's, and techs.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Interesting note, but to be fair, has any member of the military come out with language which is contrary to what the sitting government position on any matter is?

True, for obvious reasons.

As for detailing hard technical merits of the program, I'm sorry - I didn't read anything in that article that describes any hard technical merits of the program in any way shape or form.  If that was the authors intent then he would be a subject matter specialist discussing how the DAS makes this aircraft much better than anything else in existence, or how the LO of the platform is a great feature to guard against things such as mobile SAM units.

I should have been clearer in my post - this seems to be more an overall explanation of why, not nuts & bolts technical.  It's still interesting to hear this from a communications expert, not a process or political expert.

The general public don't enjoy reading in depth articles about why this plane is part of what the AF needs*, they would rather hear reasons which aren't factual but easily remembered to help them come up with new reasons to dislike this acquisition.

No way I can disagree with that bit in yellow - not JUST for the reason you've given on the issue at play in this thread.

 

[Kalatzi]

"Are you trying to imply that either of these UCAVs are fighter replacements in our Strategic environment?  Could you enlighten me on how you feel that would be so? Be specific on how you feel a non-afterburning UCAV, weighing less than 10,000lbs, that is a pure strike weapon and that is unable to carry any air to air weapons and has never (to my knowledge) been tested north of 70N is the replacement for the CF-18?  How do you see the control segment working?  Who's satellites are we using?  How are we securing the ground segment from interdiction? "

I agree that a full UCAV strike capabilirty is still some ways away. The thing that I find most interesting is that there has been plenty of concern about the costs of this programme for some time. It most reminds me of the 60's era F-111 boondoggle. The US forces are lloking at contingencies, eg Super Hornet, that may well provide better value. 

 

[Haletown]

The US "could" scrap the F-35 program.

They "could" also scrap the 6th Fleet and/or they "could" disband the Marine Corps  . .  . whatever.

Ain't gonna happen, even if throws a tingle up the leg of some MSMers and the F-35 Haters.

Too much sunk $, too expensive to fill the gaps with far less capable fleets of very old maintenance piggy aircrafts.

As for UCAV's  . . . not quite ready for Prime Time yet.

 

[dimsum]

Slight side-track from Kalatzi's tangent about the "horse and tank" thing:

I read the article today in the G&M about it and in "related" news it tries to compare the F-35 to the Global Hawk, Predator and X-47.  That irked me since it's like comparing apples to hammers; GH and Predator/Reaper are primarily ISR platforms (strategic for GH, tactical for P/R) despite P/R's strike capability.  None of those 4 (will) do the same job.  So, replacing a manned aircraft with a UCAV at this point is foolish.

In the future though...my belief is that Pilots will have no job fears for the next generation, if nothing else than the fact that I can't see anyone wanting to be a passenger in an UAV airliner yet.  However, missions like ISR and Patrol are perfectly suited to UAVs, and fighter or cargo transport may be next.  Eventually though, despite possibly (probably) violent resistance from pilots, UAVs will be the way of the future at least in military aviation.  I want to be flying as much as the next guy, but when the USAF is creating more UAV pilots than actual pilots, one has to wonder.

I don't think that the "UAV v. manned aircraft" as a "horse v. tank" argument is correct; it's more like this:

http://www.afblues.com/wordpress/2009/09/17/09172009/

(Yes, the comic is really about the "not a real pilot" jab some aircrew think about people who fly UAVs, but the argument is the same.)