F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[SupersonicMax]

During my career, I refuelled off of allied tankers more than our own tankers.  Like I said, it's almost not different than what we already do.

Once you deploy for an operation, your tankers are not necessarily used by yourself.  They become part of the coalition tankers and you get what you get on a daily basis. 

The other issue with our current tanker is the lack of offload to bring more than 3 aircraft across the pond.  The CC-150 is a great tanker, but the offload is not ideal.  Something like the KC-10 would be awesome.  Imagine having the capability to bring your personnel AND refuel your fighters while deploying overseas?  Also, instant double capability (you can have probe&drogue and boom at the same time) so more flexibility when operating with other nations.  And it's easy to refuel off of (as opposed to the KC-135!)

 

[Haletown]

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.... 

Don't tell  Christie Clark . . .  she's so desperate that . . . .

 

[Duckman54]

Educate me!!  I could be wrong, but...

1) Years back, I recall the federal NDP's lambasting the gov't about our light 'Jeeps' about the fuel system, and how it was incompatible with our allies on overseas deployment?  They were up in arms, and demanding that we get our crap together, and get our equipment up to 'standards' and all compatible with everyone else in order to ease parts, maintenance, fuelling, etc.

Now that we're considering the F-35, for exactly those reasons, the federal NDP are now criticizing the gov't about buying something that was untendered and dictated to us, rather than shopping around for what's best for our individual needs!  Make up your minds!!!

2) Back when we were first looking to replace the 104, and the F-16 was amongst the options for our Air Force, it is my understanding this plane was not considered very seriously as with our vast landmass and few airports - as opposed to US, where you can hardly fall out of an airplane and not find an airfield within arm-flapping distance - it was concluded that ANY single-engine aircraft would be unsuitable for Canada, and the predicted number of how many we would lose in peacetime training was simply too high to justify the purchase of even a 'bargain' fighter as we may have gotten in the F-16.  (add dual-role suitability argument here... lol)

If this argument is still true, and our landmass hasn't changed size significantly, and we haven't filled in our territory with about 1000 new airfields, then WHY are we even considering a single-engine fighter?


I'm not taking any sides on this, either technically or politically...  just wondering aloud about the arguments I've heard passionately spouted, then seemingly ignored.  Someone please fill in missing info?  Thanks!

'Greg.

 

[McG]

2) Back when we were first looking to replace the 104, and the F-16 was amongst the options for our Air Force, it is my understanding this plane was not considered very seriously as with our vast landmass and few airports - as opposed to US, where you can hardly fall out of an airplane and not find an airfield within arm-flapping distance - it was concluded that ANY single-engine aircraft would be unsuitable for Canada, and the predicted number of how many we would lose in peacetime training was simply too high to justify the purchase of even a 'bargain' fighter as we may have gotten in the F-16.  (add dual-role suitability argument here... lol)

If this argument is still true, and our landmass hasn't changed size significantly, and we haven't filled in our territory with about 1000 new airfields, then WHY are we even considering a single-engine fighter?

Read the thread and get your answers:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22809/post-1115197.html#msg1115197

Regardless of if the single engine reliability issue was true back when we bought the CF-188, it is not relevant today.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Educate me!!  I could be wrong, but...

2) Back when we were first looking to replace the 104, and the F-16 was amongst the options for our Air Force, it is my understanding this plane was not considered very seriously as with our vast landmass and few airports - as opposed to US, where you can hardly fall out of an airplane and not find an airfield within arm-flapping distance - it was concluded that ANY single-engine aircraft would be unsuitable for Canada, and the predicted number of how many we would lose in peacetime training was simply too high to justify the purchase of even a 'bargain' fighter as we may have gotten in the F-16.  (add dual-role suitability argument here... lol)

If this argument is still true, and our landmass hasn't changed size significantly, and we haven't filled in our territory with about 1000 new airfields, then WHY are we even considering a single-engine fighter?


I'm not taking any sides on this, either technically or politically...  just wondering aloud about the arguments I've heard passionately spouted, then seemingly ignored.  Someone please fill in missing info?  Thanks!

'Greg.

Basically, engine reliability has reached a point where there is little difference between single and twins. It might mean the difference between losing one or two aircraft over the projected lifecycle, but that must be balanced with the cost of running two engines.

This post talks about that data:

http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/22809/post-1195836.html#msg1195836

 

[Duckman54]

Hmmm....  Ok, so let's say reliability has improved. Turbines are inherently reliable, vs anything with reciprocating mass, and airline-style engines are reaching incredibly-low rates of failures. Kudos!

However, military engines, and they way they are operated, are a different creature entirely!  And, while turbines rarely 'fail' to operate, or produce usable thrust, they DO experience partial-power failures, experience the odd troubling temp/press anomaly, strange vibrations, and other abnormal conditions that prompt prudent pilots to perform a 'Precautionary Shutdown', and I'll bet those pilots are DARNED happy to have another noise-maker or more out there at those times.

I don't have any stats in front of me, but from my civilian flying experience I'm willing to bet the 'voluntary' or precautionary shutdown rate is approx 10x's the 'actual' rate of an engine entirely refusing to play ball completely, spitting out metal, etc.

Being able to complete that trans-Atlantic ferry trip, even under less-than-full-power, would sure be nice!

Other machinery seems to favor the multi-argument, tho...  for example in schools and industrial buildings, the trend is towards using 4 smaller highly-efficient boilers as opposed to one big one, as had been done for many years. Dunno if it was efficiency or redundancy that pressed the change...  BUT, if losing heat entirely in winter is simply *not an option*, refer again to the trans-Atlantic ferry flight scenario.

That said, if our experts are convinced it will only be oh-so-rare, why wouldn't we believe them?  Looks like a darned fine plane, with full capabilities yet to be disclosed to all, and I agree there will be savings experienced with operating a single. Whoo-hoo!

 

[PuckChaser]

So your civilian flying experience makes you uniquely able to tell the RCAF that they were wrong to pick a single-engine fighter for military flying?  :

 

[Good2Golf]

In a few thousand hours of flying military aircraft, both fixed-wing and rotorcraft, I have never had a problem with any of the four different single-engine aircraft I have flown. 

The three multi-engine aircraft I have flown, however, all had major engine failures, including a catastrophic ("unconstrained") turbine failure on one that missed a fuel manifold by less than a centimetre and that puked a turbine blade almost entirely through the firewall to the other engine before I got the aircraft down on the ground.

Respectfully, I think your experience does not necessarily translate into flying in the military environment with MIL-SPEC machinery.


Regards
G2G

 

[Duckman54]

Oboy, Puckchaser...  reading WAY too much into my post! lol 

No, not/never telling anyone what is right/wrong or otherwise.  And G2G, glad to hear your bad days only occured when you had spares!  Yes, turbines are becoming crazy-reliable, to the benefit of us all! Myself, I've dealt with some tempermental powerplants, but never had an honest-to-goodness failure when either single or multi...  And it's my understanding that statistically most turbine pilots will not experience a real failure in their entire careers!  That's a real good thing, MIL-SPEC or otherwise.

I have total faith in whatever we acquire and will gladly hang my butt over the edge in a single. Looking forward to the chance to apply some of my experience, and to get trained for Mil flying!

 

[Haletown]

More from the wannabe comedian crowd.

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1307937--f-35-a-case-study-in-deficient-decision-making-olive


Then again, he seems to believe Wheeler is an expert of sorts and what he says must be true.

 

[GAP]

Lockheed gets up to $4.9 billion in further F-35 funding
By Andrea Shalal-Esa December 28, 2012 Reuters
Article Link

Lockheed Martin Corp on Friday was awarded up to $4.9 billion in additional funding for its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the Pentagon announced on Friday, providing a significant end-of-year boost in orders for the largest U.S. defense contractor.

The U.S. Defense Department said it had reached agreement with Lockheed on a preliminary contract valued at up to $3.68 billion for 31 F-35s in a sixth batch of planes to be built for the U.S. military, with details to be finalized the coming year.

It also awarded Lockheed additional separate contracts valued at up to $1.2 billion for spare parts and sustainment of the new radar-evading warplane.
More on link

 

[Haletown]

Well for a plane, according to a leading Canadian journalist, which has to fly, it seems the Flight Test Program is making very good progress.

"Throughout the High AoA testing, the F-35A’s performance has closely matched piloted simulator results and modeled predictions, giving the team the confidence in the jet to continue moving forward in the test plan.

“We are significantly matching models and it gives us good confidence in the aircraft and how to polish the flight control systems so it’s even better than what we started with. Going into this unknown area of High AoA, we really like when things match. It makes you feel very safe, although we will remain cautious all the way though,” said David Nelson, F-35 chief test pilot from Lockheed Martin.


http://www.aerotechnews.com/news/2012/12/21/f-35-pushes-the-envelope/

 

[The Bread Guy]

Well for a plane, according to a leading Canadian journalist, which has to fly, it seems the Flight Test Program is making very good progress.

"Throughout the High AoA testing, the F-35A’s performance has closely matched piloted simulator results and modeled predictions, giving the team the confidence in the jet to continue moving forward in the test plan.

“We are significantly matching models and it gives us good confidence in the aircraft and how to polish the flight control systems so it’s even better than what we started with. Going into this unknown area of High AoA, we really like when things match. It makes you feel very safe, although we will remain cautious all the way though,” said David Nelson, F-35 chief test pilot from Lockheed Martin.


http://www.aerotechnews.com/news/2012/12/21/f-35-pushes-the-envelope/

Consider the source - this is a reprint of a USAF article from a few weeks back.

 

[Pte. Jay]

Holy ****... I had no idea the JSF program has been going on for so long... How do you guys feel about the delay's on the program? Any fighter pilots out there? How badly do you think the CF-18 needs to be replaced?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Any fighter pilots out there? How badly do you think the CF-18 needs to be replaced?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22809.0.html

 

[Haletown]

Holy ****... I had no idea the JSF program has been going on for so long... How do you guys feel about the delay's on the program? Any fighter pilots out there? How badly do you think the CF-18 needs to be replaced?

Go here

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22809.0.html

Start reading. 

 

[Journeyman]

Holy ****... I had no idea....

Go here

Start reading.

Deja vu for everyone except........  :not-again:

 

[estoguy]

Some other food for thought on alternatives:

Removed.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/99046.0.html

 

[Haletown]

Corny, but probably effective in the Court of Public Opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKlQyPOiRuE&feature=player_embedded



The Norwegians government, unlike the Canadian Government, launched a formal and very effective campaign to sell the F-35 acquisition to the Norwegian people.  The F-35 is embraced in Norway and unlike in Canada, it is considered a piece of effective government action.

Ottawa/DND-RCAF/the Government could learn many lessons about how to market and sell Defense acquisition from the Scandinavians.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Ottawa/DND-RCAF/the Government could learn many lessons about how to market and sell Defense acquisition from the Scandinavians.

As a taxpayer, let alone a service member, no one has yet explained to me why we need a fitfth generation fighter, other than the hackneyed "our troops deserve the best equipment" line.