• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
Hopefully a competition will also take fully into account the additional initial provisioning, training and life-cycle cost that would be associated with an aircraft that didn't use the same munitions as the CF-18 or F-35, i.e. Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon.  Perhaps Typhoon might be similar, Gripen maybe. Not sure Rafale would support use of our current and planned fighter ordnance.
 
According to the DND project bible,

Developing Project Costs – Related Programme Costs

B.8.1.13 Project staff must remember that they are delivering a capability, not just one element of a capability.  Sustainment, operating and infrastructure costs related to equipment to be acquired must be indentified to the same degree of accuracy as the acquisition cost and a source of funds must also be identified.  Note that a project must fund infrastructure costs directly related to the deliverable (e.g., a hangar for a new aircraft).  While a project may not be expected to fund the second and third order infrastructure costs (e.g., extension to the base fire hall), the sponsor must identify these costs and funding sources.  Which costs are direct and which are second or third order must be determined and identified, along with implementation responsibility, in the approved Project Charter. These cost investigations must be done as part of the PRICIE cross-functional consultations.

Thus, arguably, the weapons required for the aircraft to reach its IOC and FOC should be acquired by the project.
 
dapaterson said:
According to the DND project bible,

Thus, arguably, the weapons required for the aircraft to reach its IOC and FOC should be acquired by the project.

Arguably.  :)

Bibles are wonderful things.  They mean exactly what the local preacher wants them to mean. Preachers, accountants, lawyers and boiler inspectors - much of a sameness.  ;D

 
I would infer from the bible only that such costs would have to be determined as accurately as other elements associated with the capability and a funding source identified.  Thus, if future planned Vote 1 NP within the sponsor's L1 allocation are identified as the most appropriate source to continue funding an existing munition that is intended to still be used with the future aircraft, I would interpret the DSP intent to have been fulfilled.

Arguably, of course. ;)

Regards
G2G
 
Kirkhill said:
Arguably.  :)

Bibles are wonderful things.  They mean exactly what the local preacher wants them to mean. Preachers, accountants, lawyers and boiler inspectors - much of a sameness.  ;D

Please leave us out of this list.  ;)
 
If this is correct, greeeeeeeeat ....
The Canadian military has decided it will rely on the U.S., other allies and private companies for air-to-air refuelling if the government purchases the F-35 because the stealth fighters aren't compatible with Canada's current refuelling aircraft.

The revelation is buried in an explosive report released last week and means the Canadian military would be reliant on third parties to realize the full benefits of its F-35s - a situation opposition critics and analysts say is completely unacceptable.

"I'm shocked," said former defence department military procurement chief Alan Williams.

"At the end of the day, we want to provide our men and women in uniform the ability to do the job. And certainly eliminating that flexibility to be able to refuel when we want with our own assets is a very limiting factor."

Air-to-air refuelling is considered to be of critical importance to Canada's military aircraft given the country's massive size, particularly when it comes to conducting sovereignty missions in the North.

F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin initially said the stealth fighter would be compatible with Canada's existing refuelling aircraft - a claim repeated by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

"Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the plane, has confirmed that the F-35 can handle different types of refuelling systems, including the one currently used by our forces," MacKay told Parliament on Jan. 31, 2011.

Numerous defence department documents subsequently showed the F-35 was in fact incompatible with Canada's existing fleet of refuelling aircraft, but the military said it was examining ways to address the problem.

Now, according to accounting firm KPMG, National Defence has decided to change that plan and instead outsource air-to-air refuelling if Canada buys the stealth fighters ....
 
FJAG said:
Please leave us out of this list.  ;)

A lawyer that doesn't like to argue?  Or are you just trying to start one?  :nod:
 
Kirkhill said:
Preachers, accountants, lawyers and boiler inspectors - much of a sameness.  ;D
Boiler inspectors, while increasingly scarce, are still respected.
 
Journeyman said:
Boiler inspectors, while increasingly scarce, are still respected.

Really.....I gotta respect the twit that inspects my boilers?  ::)
 
Journeyman said:
Hey, they're not preachers, accountants, or lawyers.  :dunno:

well, yeah, I guess.........BUT, I don't have to like him......
 
See the video link here for why one observer thinks that after the dust has settled we will stick with the F-35.
 
milnews.ca said:
If this is correct, greeeeeeeeat ....

Quote
The Canadian military has decided it will rely on the U.S., other allies and private companies for air-to-air refuelling if the government purchases the F-35 because the stealth fighters aren't compatible with Canada's current refuelling aircraft.

The revelation is buried in an explosive report released last week and means the Canadian military would be reliant on third parties to realize the full benefits of its F-35s - a situation opposition critics and analysts say is completely unacceptable.

"I'm shocked," said former defence department military procurement chief Alan Williams.

"At the end of the day, we want to provide our men and women in uniform the ability to do the job. And certainly eliminating that flexibility to be able to refuel when we want with our own assets is a very limiting factor."

Air-to-air refuelling is considered to be of critical importance to Canada's military aircraft given the country's massive size, particularly when it comes to conducting sovereignty missions in the North.

F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin initially said the stealth fighter would be compatible with Canada's existing refuelling aircraft - a claim repeated by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

"Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of the plane, has confirmed that the F-35 can handle different types of refuelling systems, including the one currently used by our forces," MacKay told Parliament on Jan. 31, 2011.

Numerous defence department documents subsequently showed the F-35 was in fact incompatible with Canada's existing fleet of refuelling aircraft, but the military said it was examining ways to address the problem.

Now, according to accounting firm KPMG, National Defence has decided to change that plan and instead outsource air-to-air refuelling if Canada buys the stealth fighters ....

My gut reaction to this was "this is retarded" which is I'm sure what the author of the article intended.  Now to those who are in the business of driving fast things that keep us safe...how big a deal is this in reality?
 
Given that the F-35A can and will be equipped with the B and C model  probe for P&D operations, how does someone come to the conclusion that our current A2A refueling equipment is obsolete?

More journalism me-thinks.
 
Haletown said:
Given that the F-35A can and will be equipped with the B and C model  probe for P&D operations, how does someone come to the conclusion that our current A2A refueling equipment is obsolete?

More journalism me-thinks.
KPMG came to the conclusion here - also check page 21 of attached if link doesn't work - highlights mine:
.... KPMG requested and received a DND letter further summarizing DND's requirements, assumptions and cost treatment of the drag chute, air-to-air refuelling, weapons and NORAD .... With respect to air-to-air refuelling requirements, DND will rely on NORAD , coalition partners, or commercial refueling assets to meet operational requirements, and thus, based on these requirements and related assumptions it would not be appropriate to include potential asset modification costs in the Estimate ....
Sounds like this conclusion was reached because DND said it's the case, interchangable probe or not - or at least was the case as of the DND letter to KPMG dated about four weeks ago.
 
GR66 said:
My gut reaction to this was "this is retarded" which is I'm sure what the author of the article intended.  Now to those who are in the business of driving fast things that keep us safe...how big a deal is this in reality?

Not a huge difference from what we aleready do, minus transits.  An issue will be availability in case of a deployment for contingency ops.
 
milnews.ca said:
KPMG came to the conclusion here - also check page 21 of attached if link doesn't work - highlights mine:Sounds like this conclusion was reached because DND said it's the case, interchangable probe or not - or at least was the case as of the DND letter to KPMG dated about four weeks ago.

They made the decision to kill almost all potential modifications in the last year or so to ensure there was no added expenses.


SupersonicMax said:
Not a huge difference from what we aleready do, minus transits.  An issue will be availability in case of a deployment for contingency ops.

Now, wasn't that a situation the RCAF dealt with between 1998 and 2008 when the RCAF lacked an proper tanker? (after the CC-137 withdrawal.) How well did we handle it then?

The big driver for this was expected withdrawal from service for the Polaris is 2025... or less than four years after the F-35's IOS. By that point a lot of the aircraft will have reached 30 years of service. From 2020 onward there will be some pretty stiff competition between Boeing and Airbus for tanker aircraft; both the KC-46 and Airbus 330 MRTT lines will be options to replace our current aircraft.

The other big thing is that the F-35's unrefueled range will be quite high once the new fuel tanks are integrated (likely before 2020... or we can buy the larger Israeli 600gal tanks.) There is a possibility that it's combat radius for long range intercepts could reach 900nm, 250 more than our current CF-18s.
 
and if the AETD program pays off, the next version of the F135 will have a  much lower fuel consumption rate . . .

"Pratt & Whitney hopes to test a new adaptive fan variant of its F135 afterburning turbofan in the first quarter of 2013, company officials say.

"We think that'll be a game-changer going forward," says Bill Gostic, P&W vice-president for advanced programmes and technology. Combined with a new very high pressure ratio core, the prototype forms the basis of P&W's entrant into the US Air Force Research Laboratory's adaptive engine technology development (AETD) programme . . . .

The design goal is to retain the engine performance found on fifth-generation fighters, but to reduce the fuel consumption by at least 30%."
 
Some links to further the discussion:

http://www.airtanker.co.uk/
http://www.acus.org/natosource/ten-european-states-agree-military-air-tanker-cooperation
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-fleet/royal-fleet-auxiliary

Short form

The RAF has civilianized its AAR capability.
The rest of NATO is looking at following suit - and joining forces in the same way they have for the AWACs fleet in the past and air transport in the present

The Air Forces are catching up to the RN that has been employing civilian support (RFA) since 1905.
Arguably ( :)  ) they have been doing it much longer than that given that historically the RN regularly engaged the Merchant Marine when there was little difference between an armed merchantman and an RN third or fourth rate ship.

Perhaps Supersonic Max will find himself hooking up to a Purolator or FedEx 777 for a gulp of gas.  >:D

Edit: Or the GAS company.

http://www.globalairtankerservice.com/
 
Now if we got the F35B version and equipped it to run on LNG, we could have blimps flying above gas wells where passing fighters could fuel up....  ;)
 
Back
Top