• 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)

These numbers though are still semi dependent on us actually getting the JSF, on a semi-related note the Super Arrow project has moved forward and is now building a scale mock up for testing. At the rate the government is kicking this can down the road the SA project may even be done by the time a new fighter is picked.
 
Scale mock up is not even remotely close to flight testing. SA is a pipe dream.
 
PuckChaser said:
Scale mock up is not even remotely close to flight testing. SA is a pipe dream.

Don't get me wrong I think so as well, and at most I think it could ever become would be a technology demonstrator, if it ever made it that far. I was just pointing out that the procurment of a F-18 replacement (along with everything else it seems) is being kicked down the road so much the tin can can't be recognized any more.
 
For the record, as others who know me here would attest, I have no skin in the 'JSF game', other than to generically reference programmatics and note some specifics of this program as it relates to the larger programmatic framework.  I look forward to having it pointed out where I have missed out on the major financial elements of the investment/revenue framework of the JSF program.

Wait for it to get worse IMO, if JT and the gang get into office.

Good points, particularly Eye. There may be financial spin offs, theoretically. But let's be hard-headed in this sense: the F35 isn't politically sustainable. If the Tories can't get behind the F35 then who can? I can easily imagine Justin Trudeau taking a page out of Jean Chretien's playbook and campaigning against the JSF as a colossal waste of money akin to the EH101. This isn't just a Cadillac fighter but a Ferrari; in fact, it's not even a Ferrari but a Lamborghini. More butter, fewer guns, is always a crowd pleaser in Canadian populist politics. It's also a very nice wedge issue against Stephen Harper.

I don't think it's any accident that a former Liberal DM of Defence (of Trudeau pere vintage) has suddenly emerged in the G&M from richly deserved obscurity to make an argument that Canada doesn't need fighters, period. He's done so one year before the next federal election. Be afraid my RCAF friends, be very afraid.  ;)
 
InterestedParty:


...This isn't just a Cadillac fighter but a Ferrari; in fact, it's not even a Ferrari but a Lamborghini...

Perhaps a NASCAR truck?

Crew member dragged trying to make adjustment
1677257476001_3645353519001_nascar-ncwts14-ken-high-two922.jpg

http://www.nascar.com/en_us/news-media/videos/2014/6/26/camping-world-truck-series-kentucky-brad-keselowski-takes-crewman-with-after-pit-stop.html
Mark
Ottawa
 
MilEME09 said:
These numbers though are still semi dependent on us actually getting the JSF, on a semi-related note the Super Arrow project has moved forward and is now building a scale mock up for testing. At the rate the government is kicking this can down the road the SA project may even be done by the time a new fighter is picked.

Unfortunately, all the whiz kids on the original Arrow project went south to NASA and put man on the moon. They are all, now, happily retired in the US or dead.

I do not believe, for a second, that Canada has retained the intellectual expertise to go against multi national conglomerates that are light years ahead of anything we could hope to put together in ten to fifteen years.

As stated, there is a huge difference between a group of nerds putting together a cool looking clay model and mobilizing industry into researching, developing and producing an actual working, flight tested aircraft.

Bombardier is the only one that currently has any kind of chance. However, their expertise in aircraft lies elsewhere and they know if they try break into the fighter area their sales and grants would suffer. They didn't become what they are by pie in the sky, wacked out plans.

When Diefenbaker sold out Avro, his government cast the die to ensure Canada would never again be able to produce a cutting edge, ahead of it's time fighter aircraft.
 
Agreed that it would be a total waste of very finite dollars to try and jump into the 5th Generation fighter market.  It just isn't going to happen.  That being said, with the cost of all major military systems (fighters, armoured vehicles, ships, UAVs, etc) getting into the astronomical range is there a growing market for moderately priced systems that the rest of the world can afford?  Look how many countries around the world are struggling with their fighter replacement programs.  Is there enough of a market for cheaper 80% solution platforms to be economically viable? 

We'll never sell fighters to the USA, France, Sweden, the Eurofighter countries, etc.  They have their own industries in place and will never commit political suicide by abandoning them in favour of a foreign purchase.  But what about the rest of the world?  Could a solid fighter design that's a fraction of the cost of an F-35, Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon find enough foreign sales elsewhere to make production worthwhile?  Would the Canadian public support the sale of things that go Boom to countries that might actually use them?  I think Bombardier and Viking Air are already exploring these markets with their existing aircraft with MPA and ISR versions of their various airframes.  I think there is certainly potential here for significant sales and military budgets are squeezed and cheaper alternatives are required to maintain capabilities.  I'm just not convinced that fighters fall into that category.
 
GR66 said:
We'll never sell fighters to the USA, France, Sweden, the Eurofighter countries, etc.  They have their own industries in place and w.......


True.  We will likely never sell fighters to the USA, or any other nation, in the near conceivable future. 

You brought up the Eurofighter countries.  Is this not what the concept behind the F-35 was?  Even the USA is struggling to finance its aircraft R&D and manufacture, that they have called upon their allies in NATO, NORAD, 5 Eyes, etc. to chip in and help with the financing.  Not one nation building a 'super' aircraft, but a community of allied nations.
 
George Wallace said:
True.  We will likely never sell fighters to the USA, or any other nation, in the near conceivable future. 

You brought up the Eurofighter countries.  Is this not what the concept behind the F-35 was?  Even the USA is struggling to finance its aircraft R&D and manufacture, that they have called upon their allies in NATO, NORAD, 5 Eyes, etc. to chip in and help with the financing.  Not one nation building a 'super' aircraft, but a community of allied nations.

You're right about the F-35 and the Eurofighter countries.  They can't all afford to develop their own 5th Gen fighters with the limited market available so they are working with the USA on the F-35.  That doesn't mean though that they can afford to abandon their aerospace industries either.  If Canada did ever develop a cheap fighter alternative we'd likely never sell it to those countries because they'd likely become some of our main competitors in that market if it's viable in order to maintain their domestic aircraft companies.
 
GR66 said:
Could a solid fighter design that's a fraction of the cost of an F-35, Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon find enough foreign sales elsewhere to make production worthwhile? 

Someone thinks so... https://medium.com/war-is-boring/theres-a-new-american-jet-fighter-youve-probably-never-heard-of-9d154d12882
 
Transporter said:
Someone thinks so... https://medium.com/war-is-boring/theres-a-new-american-jet-fighter-youve-probably-never-heard-of-9d154d12882

Not really in the same category as it's not designed for air-to-air combat.  It doesn't even have radar.  Real competitors would be aircraft like the KAI/Lockheed Martin FA-50 which is supersonic, has the advanced radar and avionics that would allow it to perform in both the air-to-air and air-to-ground roles.

Overall I think we'd be better off on developing our existing strengths and exploring further use of existing Canadian airframes like the Bombardier Q400, Challenger and  Global Express or the Viking Air Dash-8, Twin Otter and Buffalo rather than pumping TONS of money to dive into a new and uncertain fighter market. 

One possibility (relating to the CAS debate) is that I believe Short Brothers, which was purchased by Bombardier had the license agreement to produce the Embraer Turcano.  Perhaps when the lease for our Harvards is up we could use a Bombardier-built Turcano as our trainer and obtain a few for CAS purposes as a kickstart to potential exports.  Other than that, I don't see it making any financial sense for Canada to try and get back into the fighter market.
 
GR66 said:
..........  That doesn't mean though that they can afford to abandon their aerospace industries either.  If Canada did ever develop a cheap fighter alternative we'd likely never sell it to those countries because they'd likely become some of our main competitors in that market if it's viable in order to maintain their domestic aircraft companies.

Once upon a time Canada did have a thriving aerospace industry.  Unfortunately, like all business in this country, the Government and their Grants and subsidies to keep certain inefficient companies afloat, have killed other Canadian companies.  We do still have some small aerospace companies in existence today, like Viking Air Ltd, but not on any scale to produce a large fleet of military aircraft, like the A.V. Roe Canada Ltd. and de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd.  Our Government is sometimes our own worst enemy.


(I look back at the loss of Ward Air, CP Air, Eastern Provincial, and so many other good Canadian Airlines; all for the sake of keeping Air Canada afloat.)
 
GR66 said:
Not really in the same category as it's not designed for air-to-air combat.  It doesn't even have radar.  Real competitors would be aircraft like the KAI/Lockheed Martin FA-50 which is supersonic, has the advanced radar and avionics that would allow it to perform in both the air-to-air and air-to-ground roles.

True, just thought it was a rather unique/novel approach. Not planning any Textron stock purchases anytime soon.  ;D
 
Can anyone shed some new light on this story, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/britains-f-35-fighter-jet-debut-scrapped-with-more-trouble-on-the-horizon/article19576279/#dashboard/follows/
gam-masthead.png

Britain’s F-35 fighter jet debut scrapped – with more trouble on the horizon

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Paul Koring
Washington — The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Jul. 12 2014

Turns out it’s too risky to fly the world’s most expensive warplane, the stealthy, deep-strike F-35 – much-coveted by Canada’s fighter jocks – across the Atlantic.

So the much-ballyhooed debut of Britain’s first F-35 at a major air show this weekend has been scrapped. In fact, all 104 F-35s built so far remain grounded – including Britain’s first F-35B, the model capable of vertical landing of hovering and then landing vertically on naval ships.

It’s just the latest snafu in the sorry, long-running, saga of the Joint Strike Fighter.

The Pentagon grounded all F-35s after a June 23 engine fire, which fortunately occurred while the aircraft was still on a runway. Engine failures are especially critical in single-engined aircraft.

The still-unexplained but major engine fire likely dooms plans to show off long-delayed, vastly-over-budget, next-generation warplane at Farnborough, the world’s biggest air show later this month. The Pentagon had intended to send three U.S. aircraft and Britain’s first F-35 to Farnborough but until the cause of the engine fire is sorted out – and whether it was a unique glitch or a fleet-wide defect – the F-35s aren’t going anywhere.

The latest woes haven’t dented the Obama administration’s unswerving support of the world’s most costly weapons program. But foreign buyers – including Canada – have balked at the delays and soaring costs. Ottawa has deferred deciding even as it remains unclear what role a stealthy, deep-strike warplane would play in Canadian defence policy.

Earlier this week, U.S. Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said “we not going to put the F-35s in the air and send them anywhere until we are absolutely convinced that it is safe to fly,” but added the F-35 “is the future for our fighter aircraft for our services.”

It’s the one-size-fits-all warplane program that may be a too big to fail.

The Pentagon wants 2,440 Joint Strike Fighters that will fly for half a century. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office; the total program cost will reach more $1.5-trillion before the last one leaves service.

But eight years after it first flew, the F-35 still isn’t operational. Costs for what was once sold as a cost-effective all-purpose warplane have ballooned more than 70 per cent to roughly $400-billion. Lockheed Martin’s initial price for 2,872 of the various versions of Joint Strike Fighter was $233-billion. That’s now zoomed to $397-billion for 409 fewer aircraft. Meanwhile, myriad software problems, a helmet that delivers reams of data but leaves some pilots disoriented, and now a crippling engine fire, have dogged the F-35.

The original promise of an economic, multi-role warplane with 70-per-cent commonality across the three variants has vanished and they are now so different that a Rand study suggested it would be cheaper to have developed completely different aircraft.

But the F-35s have managed to avoid any hits from massive defence spending.

Lockheed Martin has farmed out work to more than 1,200 companies employing more than 133,000 people scattered across 45 states. The F-35 biggest protection’s isn’t stealth, it is that it politically invincible.

Senator John McCain, a Republican hawk, and a former naval aviator – the only member of the Senate to have flown combat missions over Vietnam, where he was shot down in a A-4 Skyhawk – calls the F-35 a “classic example of the military-industrial-congressional complex.”

“It’s too big to fail, … it’s a debacle,” says Sen. McCain.

So far the F-35 is safe on Capitol Hill, even if it’s too risky to fly, at least this week.

The biggest threat may come from the U.S. Navy, which slashed its five-year purchase plan from 69 to 36. The navy is already testing unmanned stealthy warplanes; both launching them from and landing them on board aircraft carriers. With relatively modern fleets of advanced F-18s strike aircraft and a preference for the extra safety twin-engined aircraft provide, any significant scale back of the navy’s planned order of 480 F-35s could upset the entire program.

Officially the U.S. Navy remains committed to the F-35. But it faces tough choices in maintaining the size of its carrier fleet, renewing its nuclear submarine fleet.

With foreign orders also lagging the F-35 may yet follow the F-22, the hugely expensive air superiority fighter that was the Pentagon’s last major warplane program.

Originally 750 of the all-weather, twin-engined, F-22s were planned. Costs more than doubled to more than $400-million each. The program was slashed to 187 aircraft. Production ended two years ago.


I get the thrust of Mr Koring's story: sensationalism ... but what about the substance? Is there anything new or is he just rehashing old news?
 
Old news, and I'm pretty sure they knew the Brit F-35B wouldn't be ready a while ago, which is why they had a plan to bring Marine F-35Bs painted in RAF livery. That fell through a few weeks ago, well before the carrier was even commissioned by the Queen.
 
Koring writes:

...any significant scale back of the navy’s planned order of 480 F-35s could upset the entire program...

USN only has plans for 260 F-35Cs; Marines are to get 80Cs plus 340 Bs.  Koring never up on facts:
http://defensetech.org/2011/03/14/navy-and-marine-corps-f-35-purchase-plan-revealed/

Mark
Ottawa
 
I would argue we need something like the program that created the Freedom fighter and the Tiger shark, though once export of F-16's began the tiger shark wasn't viable any more. a cheap easy to produce fighter that can go toe to toe with our enemies without using to much or any sensitive technology. Something like the Textron Scorpion would be a cheap light attack aircraft. While we would just need to develop some cheap Air to air or multirole platform and maybe EW to fit all of Canadas needs.
 
MilEME09 said:
I would argue we need something like the program that created the Freedom fighter and the Tiger shark, though once export of F-16's began the tiger shark wasn't viable any more. a cheap easy to produce fighter that can go toe to toe with our enemies without using to much or any sensitive technology. Something like the Textron Scorpion would be a cheap light attack aircraft. While we would just need to develop some cheap Air to air or multirole platform and maybe EW to fit all of Canadas needs.

Nice thought, but not possible.

In the realm of aerial combat, if you're flying the second best aircraft, it usually means you're dead. It's not necessarily the air frame that wins, but the technology in it. If you don't have the latest, you may as well stay home... and then what's the point of having any at all?
 
Back
Top