F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Haletown]

"I have no dog in this acquisition fight"

But you just keep banging that drum.....over and over and over -- it gives credibility. Honest.  :nod:

Please provide your critique of the article.  Mr. Dunne has listed a number of salient points for our consideration. 

 

[Haletown]

Also for your consideration . . .

"In the recent furor over the F-35 one casualty stands out as having serious implications for national security.  Stealth, a widely-publicized attribute of the F-35, has been downplayed, denigrated, ridiculed, and attacked to the point where Canadians can be forgiven for believing that it is an unnecessary and costly feature of the aircraft, or indeed of any aircraft eventually selected to replace the CF-18.

That is unfortunate. Setting aside the political dimensions of the situation—which are many—a compelling argument can be made for the inclusion of stealth technology in Canada’s next fighter aircraft. Although it is a complex matter, there are two basic arguments in favour of stealth, and both are significant. They are mission effectiveness and pilot survivability."


http://f-35.ca/2013/hill-times-the-demonization-of-stealth/

Pls note the source before any consideration of bias. 

 

[Scott]

Please provide your critique of the article. 

Umm, I think he did...

I have no dog in this acquisition fight....but really?!....an opinion piece written by a retired CF Public Affairs officer, posted on the website "F-35.ca"? -- no bias there.

But I guess if the voices you're hearing are agreeing with you, they're the voices of sanity.

Them voices must be LOUD motherfuckers.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am not opposed to any of:

1. A new fighter to replace the CF-18s in a timely manner;

2. Directed procurement based on operational requirements; or

3. the F-35, which I am sure is a fine aircraft.

I would like to see a strategic assessment ... I would like to know that a detailed options analysis has been done ... I would like to know that we, the CF, the Government of Canada and the Canadian taxpayers, understand how much capability we are getting for how much money ... I would like to know that the RCAF's needs and wants are being properly assessed within a joint and strategic framework.

It appears to some (many?) people that a potential R&D/jobs/benefits project morphed into a sole source procurement programme without the usual staff work having been done. But I'm an oustider looking in so what do I know?

 

[dapaterson]

It's from the Chronically-Horrible, not the Hill Times.

Not an improvement.


Maj (ret'd) Dunne has also written for the Canadian Military Journal on the topic of the F-35 (http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo11/no4/55-dunne-eng.asp).  His business website is at http://www.duncom.ca.  There's no indication whether he is writing these articles as a concerned individual or as a communications professioonal on behalf of a client.

At least he's not a retired Lockheed executive whose bio omits that fact when he pushes for the F35...

 

[GR66]

I'm certainly no expert in military aircraft by any stretch of the imagination but my personal opinion is that the F-35 is probably the best choice among the available list of aircraft to act as a multi-role aircraft to replace the CF-18's for the next two generations.  For the length of time we intend to keep this plane in service it makes sense to me to get the latest possible available technology and in particular one that will be in significant use by our closest allies and defence partners (for purposes of ongoing technical support and upgrades).  Possible industrial benefits are an added bonus.

That being said, one question comes to my mind.  If all our allies and probable coalition partners are moving to use the same aircraft then does it really give us the best bang for our buck to do the same thing?  I'm sure that it would be of great political benefit to have Canadian CF-35's flying missions alongside USAF, USN, USMC, RAF, RAAF, etc F-35's but would we maybe bring more to the table if we brought a different capability than they already have? 

I'm not sure which different capability it might make most sense for us to be able to offer but maybe that thought process should be considered in the decision making process.  Perhaps it would be possible to find a different/cheaper solution for our domestic air defence requirements and also find a different niche to fill in the expeditionary role which might complement the capabilities of our allies rather than just add to their number of F-35's. 

Maybe this is a way we should go....or maybe not.  The lack of an open discussion of our requirements leaves any decision that's made open to criticism.

 

[Pte. Jay]

I'm certainly no expert in military aircraft by any stretch of the imagination but my personal opinion is that the F-35 is probably the best choice among the available list of aircraft to act as a multi-role aircraft to replace the CF-18's for the next two generations.  For the length of time we intend to keep this plane in service it makes sense to me to get the latest possible available technology and in particular one that will be in significant use by our closest allies and defence partners (for purposes of ongoing technical support and upgrades).  Possible industrial benefits are an added bonus.

That being said, one question comes to my mind.  If all our allies and probable coalition partners are moving to use the same aircraft then does it really give us the best bang for our buck to do the same thing?  I'm sure that it would be of great political benefit to have Canadian CF-35's flying missions alongside USAF, USN, USMC, RAF, RAAF, etc F-35's but would we maybe bring more to the table if we brought a different capability than they already have? 

I'm not sure which different capability it might make most sense for us to be able to offer but maybe that thought process should be considered in the decision making process.  Perhaps it would be possible to find a different/cheaper solution for our domestic air defence requirements and also find a different niche to fill in the expeditionary role which might complement the capabilities of our allies rather than just add to their number of F-35's. 

Maybe this is a way we should go....or maybe not.  The lack of an open discussion of our requirements leaves any decision that's made open to criticism.

I'm certainly not an expert on this type of aircraft by any stretch of the imagination either, but we need to look at an aircraft that can serve us well here at home, because the first responsibility of the air force is to protect our country, then we can begin to look at helping our allies and bringing different capabilities to the table. Although interchangeability and uniformity are all really important things to consider, and different capabilities to bring to NATO is something to be considered too, that's not our main focus. Right now the main focus of the air force is arctic sovereignty, and it's only gonna get more important as oil resevoirs dry up, so we need an aircraft that can operate in those conditions. (I remember reading somewhere that the F-35 was not the best fit for us, as it didn't have the dual-engine feature desired by the air force. Verify please?)

 

[WingsofFury]

(I remember reading somewhere that the F-35 was not the best fit for us, as it didn't have the dual-engine feature desired by the air force. Verify please?)

Opinion only, not necessarily factual.  Consider F-16's in Alaska which patrol the entire pacific rim in conditions that are worse than most here in Canada.  Also consider that there have been fewer F-16 engine incidents vs F-18 engine incidents.

 

[Pte. Jay]

Opinion only, not necessarily factual.  Consider F-16's in Alaska which patrol the entire pacific rim in conditions that are worse than most here in Canada.  Also consider that there have been fewer F-16 engine incidents vs F-18 engine incidents.

That makes sense

 

[WingsofFury]

Just wondering out loud here, but I think Boeing might be doing themselves a disservice by promoting the Super Hornet over the SLAM Eagle.

Yes, it's more expensive to operate, but at least it has some international sales to back it up while at the same time exceeding the capabilities and ordnance load of the Super Hornet.

Of course, I know that the trend is to reduce the cost of operation and that's why the SH is being pitched.  Still, I wonder how the 42 years cost of a fleet of F-15K's would compare in relation to the $46B put forth for the F-35A.

 

[dapaterson]

Also for your consideration . . .

"In the recent furor over the F-35 one casualty stands out as having serious implications for national security.  Stealth, a widely-publicized attribute of the F-35, has been downplayed, denigrated, ridiculed, and attacked to the point where Canadians can be forgiven for believing that it is an unnecessary and costly feature of the aircraft, or indeed of any aircraft eventually selected to replace the CF-18.

That is unfortunate. Setting aside the political dimensions of the situation—which are many—a compelling argument can be made for the inclusion of stealth technology in Canada’s next fighter aircraft. Although it is a complex matter, there are two basic arguments in favour of stealth, and both are significant. They are mission effectiveness and pilot survivability."


http://f-35.ca/2013/hill-times-the-demonization-of-stealth/

Pls note the source before any consideration of bias.

The source?  You mean a retired executive from Lockheed Martin?

No possible bias there  :facepalm:

 

[Journeyman]

http://f-35.ca/2013/hill-times-the-demonization-of-stealth/
Pls note the source before any consideration of bias.

The source?  You mean a retired executive from Lockheed Martin?

No possible bias there  :facepalm:

...posted on Lockheed-Martin's website.  :not-again:

 

[HB_Pencil]

Just wondering out loud here, but I think Boeing might be doing themselves a disservice by promoting the Super Hornet over the SLAM Eagle.

Yes, it's more expensive to operate, but at least it has some international sales to back it up while at the same time exceeding the capabilities and ordnance load of the Super Hornet.

Of course, I know that the trend is to reduce the cost of operation and that's why the SH is being pitched.  Still, I wonder how the 42 years cost of a fleet of F-15K's would compare in relation to the $46B put forth for the F-35A.

You're probably looking at about roughly 20+% increase in operational costs based on current cost differences between between the F-16 and F-15E.... conservatively. he availability will certainly be lower than the F-35, so you'll need more aircraft available to operate at one time. Unfortunately  due to higher acquisition costs, we're probably only be able to less than 60 with a $9 billion dollar cap, probably closer to 50 so airframes. Its really not a good option when you consider that the F-35 exceeds the F-15E's capabilities in most areas, especially in the one that seems to matter the most these days, cost.

 

[GR66]

I'm certainly not an expert on this type of aircraft by any stretch of the imagination either, but we need to look at an aircraft that can serve us well here at home, because the first responsibility of the air force is to protect our country, then we can begin to look at helping our allies and bringing different capabilities to the table. Although interchangeability and uniformity are all really important things to consider, and different capabilities to bring to NATO is something to be considered too, that's not our main focus. Right now the main focus of the air force is arctic sovereignty, and it's only gonna get more important as oil resevoirs dry up, so we need an aircraft that can operate in those conditions. (I remember reading somewhere that the F-35 was not the best fit for us, as it didn't have the dual-engine feature desired by the air force. Verify please?)

Well, if protecting our arctic sovereignty is the priority for the CF then one has to ask are modern (and expensive) fighters really the best way to spend our limited capital budget?  If we were REALLY serious about arctic sovereignty we should probably be putting more money into long-range patrol aircraft, the AOPS, coast guard ice breakers, search and rescue assets, environmental and customs policing, satellite surveillance, RCMP and Ranger presence, etc at the expense of new fighters. 

Of course we still need fighters to replace the CF-18's and we need modern (and expensive) ones to last us for many years of service.  I just think that trying to tailor them to a (in my opinion) very minimal domestic air-to-air threat at the expense of effectiveness for overseas offensive capabilities is a poor argument.  I think we need to be more honest about what we need our fighters (and our other military hardware) for so that we can get what we really need.  When the Thomas Mulcairs of the world stand up and say "is the F-35 the best suited and most cost effective aircraft to defend Canadian airspace?" our leaders should have the guts to stand up and say "No, but it's the best suited and most cost effective aircraft to defend Canada's sovereignty by blowing the crap out of the bad guys around the world that are threatening our global interests".

 

[WingsofFury]

You're probably looking at about roughly 20+% increase in operational costs based on current cost differences between between the F-16 and F-15E.... conservatively. he availability will certainly be lower than the F-35, so you'll need more aircraft available to operate at one time. Unfortunately  due to higher acquisition costs, we're probably only be able to less than 60 with a $9 billion dollar cap, probably closer to 50 so airframes. Its really not a good option when you consider that the F-35 exceeds the F-15E's capabilities in most areas, especially in the one that seems to matter the most these days, cost.

Ya, I know.  I'm just not a fan of everything being looked at strictly by cost, as the only thing I hear when I think about that is that the cheapest platform should be the winner of the current process.

Capability, IMHO, should be what is looked at first - not what we can get for the lowest possible amount.  That's why I think that the SLAM Eagle would be a better option than the Super Hornet - much better capabilities when you compare it to the SH.  Nothing out there will really compete against the F-35, on that we agree.  I just think that Boeing would do well to change their pitch and the product they have in the offering.

Of course, this goes back to my military and post secondary funding model which believes that we should pay whatever it costs for the military to do its thing while at the same time paying for every person in this country to get a basic University or College degree of their choosing.  If they want to become specialists in something, then they pay for that.  Sorry to show my socialist side, but there's nothing wrong with having a nation of very well educated people.

Much in the same way that there shouldn't be questions about how much we fund our military to do the work of ensuring our nations freedom.

 

[WingsofFury]

Well, if protecting our arctic sovereignty is the priority for the CF then one has to ask are modern (and expensive) fighters really the best way to spend our limited capital budget?  If we were REALLY serious about arctic sovereignty we should probably be putting more money into long-range patrol aircraft, the AOPS, coast guard ice breakers, search and rescue assets, environmental and customs policing, satellite surveillance, RCMP and Ranger presence, etc at the expense of new fighters. 

Of course we still need fighters to replace the CF-18's and we need modern (and expensive) ones to last us for many years of service.  I just think that trying to tailor them to a (in my opinion) very minimal domestic air-to-air threat at the expense of effectiveness for overseas offensive capabilities is a poor argument.  I think we need to be more honest about what we need our fighters (and our other military hardware) for so that we can get what we really need.  When the Thomas Mulcairs of the world stand up and say "is the F-35 the best suited and most cost effective aircraft to defend Canadian airspace?" our leaders should have the guts to stand up and say "No, but it's the best suited and most cost effective aircraft to defend Canada's sovereignty by blowing the crap out of the bad guys around the world that are threatening our global interests".

Having new aircraft is going to play a part of having protection for our arctic region.  You can't have all the things that you mentioned and not have a platform capable of engaging airborne threats, whether they be in the form of bombers or fighter aircraft.

As to the comment about what the F-35 is best suited for, I would put forth the same argument that was used when the CF-18 was acquired.  It's the best multirole option available which allows protection and defence of Canadian airspace while still being able to perform in UN or NATO sanctioned ops against airborne or ground targets in foreign environments.

 

[dapaterson]

Much in the same way that there shouldn't be questions about how much we fund our military to do the work of ensuring our nations freedom.

Strict oversight is needed.  Militaries cannot be self-policing or self-identifying requirements.

I do not wish to live in a nation where the military and its spending cannot be questioned.

 

[Kirkhill]

Strict oversight is needed.  Militaries cannot be self-policing or self-identifying requirements.

I do not wish to live in a nation where the military and its spending cannot be questioned.

Amen said the choir.  :nod:

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Of course, this goes back to my military .... funding model which believes that we should pay whatever it costs for the military to do its thing ...

Much in the same way that there shouldn't be questions about how much we fund our military to do the work of ensuring our nations freedom.

Astounding.  You are (presumably) an officer in the Canadian Forces, and yet have no clue as to the makeup of the foundations of the country that you have sworn to protect. 

I will give you a few hints:

* Canada is a democracy
* The duly elected government decides what the "military's thing" is, not the military
* The government decides how much to fund the military, and to what end
* The government is responsible to the people (we more progressive thinkers like to call them voters) for the stewardship of the nation, in every sense.  This includes making best possible use of the revenues raised by the government in order to protect the nation's interests
* The determination of the nation's interest is the sole purview of the government.
* Pesky "questions" about how the government do all of the above are the hallmark of a functioning democracy. 

Please learn a little bit about the country that pays your wage, and as a putative military professional, where you and your institution fit within that country.

 

[WingsofFury]

Strict oversight is needed.  Militaries cannot be self-policing or self-identifying requirements.

I do not wish to live in a nation where the military and its spending cannot be questioned.

Nowhere did I say that they should be either self policing or self identifying requirements.  I simply believe that if we, as a nation, expect our military to do a job, that when the time comes to buy new equipment to fulfill whatever the mandate of the government is, that we shouldn't worry about cost.  Rather, we should get them the best tool for the job.  That's why I believe the F-35, as much more expensive as it is than the Super Hornet, is the right tool for the job.