• 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)

Loachman said:
Yes, a billion dollars to buy no helicopters.

.....to end up buying hellicopters anyhow, one that was the same as was cancelled (CH-149) and onethat no one else flies, at great cost in system development and great delays (CH-148)

We could have been flying Merlins for how many years ?
 
Petamocto said:
we shouldn't be spending a dime on researching anything because we don't have enough money. 

Unfortunately for us, we must carry out research is some areas because :

a) No other country is doing it as they have no need ; or
b) Countries doing research in "x" will not share their findings/technology with us.

Alot of the work done by DRDC is necessary because of those 2 situations, beleive me.
 
I am out of my lane here but seems to me that advanced technologies is an important part to win a war, but of course not the only one as we can see in present and recent conflicts. Having our own independence in military R&D could help us if we get in another major war. But that is my  :2c:

I found this interesting hyperlink:

www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars

www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/war_tech_gallery.shtml

War and Technology Gallery, By Matthew Bennett, Last updated 2009-11-05
Warfare and technology are intimately related. From the earliest times, the development of industrial and architectural techniques combined to create both improved weapon systems and fortifications designed to frustrate them. Then came the development of gunpowder weapons in the West, just prior to 1500. This advance, combined with improved shipbuilding, paved the way for the galleon - a machine for world conquest.
But it was the technological developments that took place from 1750 onwards, increasing on an exponential curve, that really transformed modern warfare and spread across much of the globe. The result was seen in the use of a whole range of high explosives, aircraft and submarines in the early 20th century. Then within 50 years the nuclear bomb was created - a weapon too dangerous to use.
Despite these sophisticated advances, 'conventional' warfare continues to proliferate, and the 'low-tech' AK47 assault rifle is probably responsible for more deaths than high-grade technology.
 
Missleading thread title.

All they said is that they are canceling their first airplane (1 airplane) and that airplane was meant for their operational test program, which is why they are canceling their operational test program. This does not mean they not buying F35's.
 
Interesting. In my honest opinion, the F35 is junk. I know Canada has invested 120million into the F-35 program, but why not go with a cheaper, more practical multi-role fighter like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet? Canada doesn't need a hover, short take off aircraft with stealth capabilities lol Just save 20million a plane and upgrade to the Super hornet. 
 
Angry-Kraut said:
Canada doesn't need a hover, short take off aircraft with stealth capabilities

Good thing that its not the version we are considering then eh ?
 
Angry-Kraut said:
Either way,

Helps to know which airplane we're talking about when commenting.


at 89million a plane is it worth it?

I have my opinions on that but i dont make policy and i'm not a fighter guy.

 
CDN Aviator said:
Helps to know which airplane we're talking about when commenting.

I have my opinions on that but i dont make policy and i'm not a fighter guy.

Well I believe the variant Canada is looking at is the F-35A, although I can't confirm that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II    Under variants

I'm also not a fighter guy, but I can see that amount of money going to better programs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II  Under unit cost 
http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Lightning+II+Cost+has+Doubled+F136+Engine+Completes+Afterburner+Test/article17944.htm  First para
 
Angry-Kraut said:
Well I believe the variant Canada is looking at is the F-35A, although I can't confirm that.

Dude, you are contradicting yourself:

Angry-Kraut said:
Canada doesn't need a hover, short take off aircraft with stealth capabilities

The A model is not VTOL or STOVL.

FYI, yes it would be convenient to get a STOL aircraft.  Why?  Have you looked at the lenght or the runways up North?  It's eighter that, or the Government will need to invest to lenghten the runways we use for our FOLs.  It will come down to a cost comparison.

For Stealth capabilities, tell me why it is not a good thing?  Don't you think it would be a good thing to be able to do a DCA or AI mission, and be able to hide in the Main Beam Clutter for longer because our RCS is smaller, and have the bad guys on our radars before they can? 

I am not defending the JSF.  I personally think the single engine thing is not the way to go.  However, the decision is made at a much higher level than mine and I'll fly whatever I'm told to fly.  But the JSF is definately not a piece of junk.
 
Oddly, there have been plenty of potentially revolutionary changes developed using the F-16 platform, including the cranked arrow F-16 XL, Agile Falcon and VISTA, as well as inspiring similar designs like the IAI LAVI and Mitsubishi F-2. These planes used drastic changes to the basic airframe or control software (or both) to really move the performance parameters. Often, the only real reasons they were not adopted as the "next generation" F-16 had to do with politics (needing to keep the McDonnell-Douglas plant open had a lot to do with the adoption of the Strike Eagle over the F-16XL), or logistics.

WRT getting high performance equipment at lower costs, the incentives have to be different. Current procurement systems reward spending tons of money and building bureaucratic empires rather than hardware. Maybe if the incentive was a generous cash prize to whoever can deliver a piece of kit to specification "x", low cost, creative and out of the box solutions would be more available, while technological dead ends would not cost the taxpayer a dime.
 
On a related subject. The Ottawa Citizen is reporting that it will cost $9 billion to replace the CF-18. Here is the article reproduced with the usual caveats.

$9B pricetag likely for Canada's next-generation fighter aircraft

By David ********, Canwest News Service May 29, 2010

Replacing Canada's CF-18s with a new generation of fighter aircraft will cost taxpayers around $9 billion, one of the most expensive military equipment purchases ever, the Ottawa Citizen has learned.

The Conservative government confirmed in 2008 its plans to purchase 65 fighter aircraft and is expected to approve the project some time this year, air force officials say.

The Defence Department would not provide a cost estimate, claiming that to make the figure public would undercut the procurement process for what is being called the next generation fighter. "To date, no decision has been made by the government of Canada on the choice of a next-generation fighter aircraft or on the procurement approach," added DND spokeswoman Jocelyn Sweet.

But in April, Col. Randy Meiklejohn, of the Directorate of Aerospace Requirements, told a gathering of defence-industry representatives in Ottawa that the cost of the program would be about $9 billion. The air force, he pointed out, plans to have the new aircraft in service starting in 2017.

The figure he used would include not only the 65 aircraft but also spare parts and long-term support.

A number of different fighter aircraft could be considered as a replacement for the CF-18s, but the military has been partial to the U.S.-built Joint Strike Fighter.

The Defence Department's claim that it cannot release any figures associated with a new aircraft purchase until the project is approved by government appears to contradict its previous position. DND documents obtained through the Access to Information law previously estimated the full cost to replace at least 80 CF-18 fighter aircraft would be $10.5 billion.

Steven Staples, president of the Ottawa-based Rideau Institute, said DND didn't want to provide the $9-billion figure because it's worried about a backlash from taxpayers.

"Their plan is to keep this in the backrooms and try to get this deal signed without anyone noticing," said Staples, who has spoken out against what he says are high levels of military spending. "The government wants to spend $9 billion on a stealth fighter when this country has a $50 billion deficit. They should try spending a little more on health care instead."

Staples noted that the cost of the project is creeping up without explanation — at one point the government was going to spend $10.5 billion on 80 fighters; now it is $9 billion for 65. "Who knows what this will end up costing Canadians?" he said.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris, who raised the issue of the next-generation fighters in the House of Commons Thursday, said it is not clear at this point why Canada needs to spend billions on a new fighter jets.

He pointed out that in March, the Canadian Forces received the last of its newly upgraded CF-18 fighters. That project cost $2.6 billion.

An air force study produced last year also noted the need for manned fighter aircraft will decrease starting after 2019 as unmanned aerial vehicles — or drones — and other advanced technologies became more common.

But there are those in the defence community who say the new jets are needed.

The Air Force Association of Canada has pointed out that the jets are necessary to support military forces overseas and to protect Canadian sovereignty. Piloted aircraft can't be fully replaced by drones, the association argues.

Meanwhile, in the Commons Thursday, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said a new generation fighter would not only contribute to making sure the military has the right equipment, it would also provide opportunities for domestic aerospace companies.

"There is eye-watering technology now available, and a fifth-generation fighter aircraft will be brought to Canada after the year 2017," he said.

But MacKay also appeared to contradict DND's claim that no decision had been made on how the procurement program for the new fighter aircraft will be handled when he said there would be an open competition. MacKay went on to suggest the decision would be between the Joint Strike Fighter and another aircraft he didn't name.

Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister at DND, said he found it strange the department was not being more forthcoming about the new fighter program. "Whenever you're going to be spending billions of dollars, you need to involve industry, involve the public and involve Parliament," said Williams. "It makes no sense to hide this."

He noted that when he was with the Defence Department, it was common for equipment project leaders to talk about their programs as well as give details on the rough estimates of project costs — now that isn't being done. Williams said since he left DND in 2005, there has been a significant increase in secrecy around military-procurement programs.

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service 

Article Link
 
In reference to my last post here is part of Thursdays discussion Defence Minister Mackay about the Canada's next fighter:

Mr. Jack Harris: 
    Mr. Chair, did I take the minister's earlier comments in my last round of questions to mean that the government has already decided to purchase planes from the joint strike group fighter program?


Hon. Peter MacKay: 
    Mr. Chair, the hon. member is mistaken. None whatsoever. I should have referred to this with the more generic term that this is the “next generation” of aircraft. The joint strike fighter is one of the two aircraft, and there may be others. But I think those are the two main contenders that we are looking at. Obviously we want to get the best value, the best aircraft, and we have already embarked upon investments to ensure that happens.
(My emphasis)
 
The Netherlands just had their national elections yesterday, and there appears to be no clear winner. It looks like another political coalition, which I understand are quite common in Dutch politics. One of the topics during the election was whether the Dutch would buy the F-35 or not. Here is a report (Reproduced under the Section 29 of the Fair Dealings Section of the Copyright Act) from Aviation Week on possible outcomes:

Dutch Election Leaves JSF Situation No Clearer
Posted by Robert Wall at 6/10/2010 1:06 PM CDT

Dutch voters have gone to the polls in an election where continued participation in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program became a campaign issue.

But with the results now in, as many had feared going into the election, there would be no clear indication what might happen to the F-16 modernization program. The electorate has not delivered a clear vote, so JSF hangs in the balance.

If anything can be read out of the results, it's a tad bit of positive news for JSF supporters. Although things are close, the VVD party has narrowly secured the most seats -- but not nearly enough to govern. But the VVD has supported JSF and since it holds 31 seats in the 150 seat parliament, a tad more than the JSF-opposing Labor party, it will likely get the first chance to form a coalition government. How that coalition is assembled with really dictate what happens on JSF.

An answer to that question could be weeks if not months away.

Article Link

 
From Aviation Week, more on the possibility that the Dutch may pull out of the F-35 evaluation phase (Reproduced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act):

Dutch May Pull Out Of Next F-35 Phase

Jul 1, 2010

By Robert Wall

LONDON — The U.S. Joint Strike Fighter program office is developing options to allow the Netherlands to withdraw from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter initial operational test and evaluation phase.

A Dutch delegation recently met with U.S. officials to discuss the issue. The Dutch participation in the IOT&E phase is in limbo as a result of a combination of factors: a parliamentary move prior to recent general elections and the uncertainty over the country’s leadership owing to no clear election outcome.

Prior to the election, parliament voted to end its participation in the IOT&E phase, but program supporters say the vote should not have come up. They argue that a prior agreement by political parties not to take major program decisions until after the elections, which was decided after the fall of the elected government in February, means the JSF decision should not have been taken.

Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop told legislators that he has notified U.S. officials of the current situation and asked to prepare options to cancel the already placed order for the one IOT&E aircraft and for long-lead funding for a second. Devising those options will take several weeks, he says in a June 30 letter to parliament. One of the main issues to sort out is what the costs of such a move will be.

He also says he expects to update parliament on JSF cost figures during the summer to help inform a decision on the path forward for the F-16 replacement program.

Article Link]
 
Production runs have started.
USAF receives first production F-35s
11 May 2011
Bryn Weese (QMI Agency Parliamentary Bureau)
The London Free Press

OTTAWA -- The U.S. Air Force has taken possession of the first production F-35 fighter jet and another eight are ready to be delivered, according to developer Lockheed Martin.

On Friday, the first of nearly 2,000 fifth-generation stealth fighter jets for the U.S. flew from Lockheed Martin's facility in Fort Worth, Texas, to Edwards Air Force Base in California. Canada's Conservative government has committed to buy 65 F-35s for $9 billion plus an estimated $7 billion in maintenance costs during the life of the aircraft.

The Canadian Forces will start to receive its F-35s, which will ultimately replace its aging fleet of CF-18s, in 2016.

"This first aircraft is the beginning of the modernization of U.S. Air Force, Marine and naval air power and for our coalition partners around the world," Lockheed Martin's Larry Lawson said in a statement Monday.

"The F-35 family of aircraft will bring an incredible increase in capability that our men and women defending us deserve. Today, we begin to fulfil the vision of our government and international customers."

News of the first production plane's delivery is bolstering officials here that the aircraft the federal government is buying will be delivered on time and on budget.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Tuesday the government is moving ahead with its plans, which they say will be a boon for Canada's aerospace industry.

"Our government's commitment to procure 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft as well as spares, infrastructure, weapons and simulators for $9 billion provides almost $12 billion worth of industrial benefits for Canadian industry," MacKay said in an e-mail Tuesday.

"I'm proud to be part of a government that is successfully procuring the right plane for the Canadian Forces at the right price for the Canadian taxpayer."

The government insists its price of $75 million per plane is firm, but critics in Canada and the U.S. have long argued the aircraft will cost far more than current estimates.

Earlier this year, the Parliamentary Budget Office released a report estimating the planes could cost as much as $149 million each and $300 million in service costs over their 30-year lifespan, though the government vehemently disputes that figure.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris said his party, now the official opposition, won't let up on the aircraft procurement, the largest in Canadian military history.

Opposition parties have blasted the government for what they allege was a sole-source deal and have wondered whether the F-35 is too rich for Canada's blood.

"I don't think things are moving along as expected. We've had considerable delays and cost overruns," Harris said Tuesday. "No one outside of their own (Conservative) spin doctors believed the price that they were putting on this."

He said the NDP will continue to press the government on the F-35 purchase, not only on the process without a competitive bid, but also whether the F-35 is the right plane for Canada.
 
I would love to see Peter McKay stand up in the House and say:

"Mr Speaker, the Honourable Member has raised valid questions about Canada's purchase of new fighter planes. After consultation with the Chief of the Air Staff and the CDS for a detailed assessment, Canada will commit to purchasing 100 CF-35's as being appropriate to our needs...."

>:D
 
Ok, while I'm all for competitive bidding, some politicians need to educate themselves before they speak.  I'd like NDP Defence Critic Jack Harris to explain which other stealth aircraft is out there that can be an alternative to the F-35.  Unless I've been living under a rock I don't know of any.  While I'm certainly no right wing conservative, I fear that if the NDP ever get into power the Canadian military will be thrown back into the dark days of the 70's and early 80's, when they had to make do with hopelessly obsolete equipment.
 
Back
Top