F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Loachman]

We no longer fly AWACS missions for NATO, but the combined sensor suites of a flight of F-35's provides much of the same capability between the aircraft linked in, and this capability is not totally eliminated by a failure or destruction of a single platform, unlike AWACS.

This would not provide continual coverage, however.

 

[Good2Golf]

There was a quote from someone in the airforce recently that said the upgrades have to be completed by 2021 to be worth their cost.

So you assess that they should have already started modifying the current fleet now to meet the ready-for-2021 timeline, and thus late to need?

 

[jmt18325]

So you assess that they should have already started modifying the current fleet now to meet the ready-for-2021 timeline, and thus late to need?

I'm simply looking at the timeline of recent projects and doubting that it will get done in the 5 year time frame that we have remaining.

 

[Good2Golf]

Looking simply at a complex issue may not lead to well-founded conclusions.  Are you familiar with CP3?

 

[jmt18325]

Looking simply at a complex issue may not lead to well-founded conclusions.  Are you familiar with CP3?

Not at all. 

If they can get it done on time, great.  If they can't, that's not good.  Nothing done recently has given me that confidence.

 

[Good2Golf]

Not at all. 

If they can get it done on time, great.  If they can't, that's not good.  Nothing done recently has given me that confidence.

So CP3, or 'Control Point 3' is an invasive structural modification that would support the CF-18 ELE's extension from 2025 to 2030.  It is a known (already structurally designed to be implemented) modification, "off-the-shelf" as it were.  To get from 2020 to 2025 would take less than a full-fleet CP3 modification, so it is valid to ask those who purport to know, what is it that cannot be done now within suitable remaining timelines to support the extension of CF-18 fleet operations?

At the risk of arming the armchair quarterbacks with greater detail to potentially take out of context, or for them to become even more of an expert on the CF-188 life extension program, the following DND reference is given to at least provide a level of information that some (many?) say has not (yet) been provided: 2011 Task 4 Report (CF-188 Life Extension Options)

Here is a snapshot 'nugget' from the report to use as a quick reference for CF-18 life extension options:

ELE 2020 Baseline. Required structural upgrades and additional avionics update requirements to meet the current ELE are forecasted. While the required structural upgrade costs are known and funded, the avionics upgrades needed to meet the ELE 2020 target are a recent requirement, not identified during the previous CF-18 ELE extension study. These costs are not yet funded.

ELE 2025. A CF-18 ELE extension to 2025 is assessed as a low risk option in terms of cost, schedule and technical factors. This ELE target would generate some robust requirements in order to manage continuing airworthiness and obsolescence issues.

ELE 2030. A CF-18 ELE extension to 2030 would be a very technically challenging, lengthy and costly endeavour. A majority of the fleet (50 aircraft) would need to be flown beyond the currently certified safe life of 1.0 FLEI based on current projections, and also requires all CF-18s to undergo CP3. This would necessitate development of a new structural life extension program, with some significant NRE costs to develop and certify the requisite modifications, repairs and inspections. A large and costly procurement of new wings and flight controls would also be required to support this effort, as the structural lives of these components would expire for many of the fleet’s aircraft.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The question of if it is "worth the cost" for an F-35 is interesting to contemplate.



And of course, Canadian industry losing contracts to supply parts and service to the F-35 program is a potential loss of billions of dollars in income for industry and workers.

So what is the "true" cost of the F-35 program?

Good points, Lockheed ensured that poison pill was there and allowed countries to get hooked early, a form of legal blackmail for sure. So is that a "cost" or just blackmail?

 

[YZT580]

wing sets and the like may be expensive but how would it compare to replacing the 50 aircraft on a one to one basis with Hornet derivatives, knowing as you did so that said derivatives would be past their best before date by 2030 and therefore targets for replacement and hopelessly obsolete by 2040 in the same manner that our starfighters and voodoos were when they were finally retired?

 

[jmt18325]

wing sets and the like may be expensive but how would it compare to replacing the 50 aircraft on a one to one basis with Hornet derivatives, knowing as you did so that said derivatives would be past their best before date by 2030 and therefore targets for replacement and hopelessly obsolete by 2040 in the same manner that our starfighters and voodoos were when they were finally retired?

I've provided quotes in this very thread showing that the Hornet will be flown by the US Navy until 2030 and the Super Hornet until at least 2040, probably beyond.

 

[PuckChaser]

2030. Any other time you throw out there is a wild guess with absolutely no substantiation. The only thing that might be flown beyond is the Growlers, IF the F-35 doesn't have the EA capabilities it does. The USB is using Super Hornet until it gets enough F-35s, end of story. Thinking that will be in 2040 is out to lunch.

 

[MarkOttawa]

PuckChaser: These seem good sources for the facts:

1)

...
The Navy had been planning for the Super Hornets to serve well into the 2030s, but now service leaders say that timeline will need to extend into the 2040s...
http://www.defensetech.org/2015/04/22/navy-leans-toward-building-more-super-hornets-after-f-35c-delays/

2) 

...
The Navy...will keep its Hornets and then Super Hornets in the carrier air wing until the 2040s...
https://news.usni.org/2016/04/26/navy-digging-out-of-fighter-shortfall-marines-still-struggling-to-fly-at-home

Mark
Ottawa

 

[PuckChaser]

Good, so when we're stuck flying SHs in the 2050s because there's no money for replacement, we can hold the distinction of being the only first world country flying them. Years after the production line shut down. Great plan.

 

[Good2Golf]

Just to put things in perspective, for how long the Hornet will go (let's assume 2025), if we back up in time the same period to the fighter aircraft of the day, guess what the Hornet would have been replacing?

Yup, the  Mk.1 Supermarine Spitfire.  Of course there were really things like Sabres and Clunks and Voodoos and Starfighters in between the Spitfire and Hornet, but the Legacy Hornet is doing decently, so one would expect that SHs won't just be thrown away in 2040, if the interim plan becomes reality (and worse yet, the end-state aircraft)!

Food for thought.

Regards
G2G

 

[jmt18325]

2030. Any other time you throw out there is a wild guess with absolutely no substantiation. The only thing that might be flown beyond is the Growlers, IF the F-35 doesn't have the EA capabilities it does. The USB is using Super Hornet until it gets enough F-35s, end of story. Thinking that will be in 2040 is out to lunch.

Wild speculation from senior leadership in the airforce that claim the Super Hornet will be the bulk of their fleet until 2035, and that they will use them until until 2040 or even longer (I'll give you that the even longer seems speculative).  There was no speculative element to the 2035 claim.

 

[Journeyman]

Wild speculation from senior leadership in the airforce .....

Details from RCAF senior leadership is "wild speculation," yet what's posted here is supposed to be rational, informed discourse?  :

 

[Altair]

Wild speculation from senior leadership in the airforce that claim the Super Hornet will be the bulk of their fleet until 2035, and that they will use them until until 2040 or even longer (I'll give you that the even longer seems speculative).  There was no speculative element to the 2035 claim.

This thread is solidly in the camp of people entrenched that the F35 is the only aircraft that matters and those who think that there are plenty of aircraft in the air to choose from with no side ever going to say anything that will change the others mind.

Going to be a lot of butt hurt F35 fans in a few years I'm guessing.

 

[SupersonicMax]

You don't get it.  I am not a fan of anything.  I literally just want the best aircraft for the missions we do and will do in the next 40-50 years at a reasonable cost.  I don't care what it is, as long as it is a sensible choice that meets those broad criteria.  The Grippen, SH, Eurofighter or Rafale don't meet those criteria.

 

[PuckChaser]

Yep, shame on us for wanting top of the line equipment for one for the CAF, instead of just "good enough".

 

[Altair]

You don't get it.  I am not a fan of anything.  I literally just want the best aircraft for the missions we do and will do in the next 40-50 years at a reasonable cost.  I don't care what it is, as long as it is a sensible choice that meets those broad criteria.  The Grippen, SH, Eurofighter or Rafale don't meet those criteria.

I'm not a fan of the Habs,  I just hate every other nhl team [lol:

 

[Altair]

Yep, shame on us for wanting top of the line equipment for one for the CAF, instead of just "good enough".

Apology accepted.