F-35 issues

[Udowish]

There are better options than the F-35; yup but F-22's are prohibatively expensive and under current US law can not be sold to a foreign power. So I guess we are in agreement there.

Climbing cost...again? I haven't heard that since gr9527's financial analysis so i would say again, moot point and I think debunked. Of course, 5 years down the road who knows, just like the hornets had all kinds of tail issues due to fatigue etc etc within a decade of their deployment.

Less range, sure that is true but it is smaller than a super hornet and hence can not carry internally more fuel.

I won't go into the selection issue, I think I have made my comments on that already.

F-35 design doesn't offer any improvement to NORAD. Well, maybe maybe not, it does add a stealth feature but you could argue ok. It's just another weapons platform like any other fighter.

I think you also know that procurment money for captical purchaces does not come directly (in total) from the DND budget. But lets be realistic, we need new jets you can spend the money on these or some other jet, but you have to buy new jets. The current fleet is aging out.

[stampeder]

We need to clear up a misconception here about F-22 availability to Canada. Lt Col Molloy, USAF wrote in his 2000 study that there are no limitations on sharing that aircraft with our country:

https://research.maxwell.af.mil/pape...aas/molloy.pdf (pp. 69, 70)

We are denied the F-22 in order to shunt us over to it's miserable little cousin, the F-35. I am all for new jets, as I've said before. I am all for purchasing wisely based on an open competition for an aircraft that actually meets our needs best.

[Udowish]

then hey, I am all for getting some raptors

[stampeder]

They've slammed the door on that. We want door number one but they keep opening door number three.

[runnin']

At least we are going to be getting something sooner rather than later. Regardless of the campaign by other manufacturers to make the F-35 look bad, the result will be much better than the Sea King replacement fiasco which went on for a decade or more.

[stampeder]

And the used submarine fiasco too. As for other companies trying to make the F-35 look bad they haven't had to work very hard at that, not to mention that successive Prime Ministers have ignored them anyways!

[Udowish]

I guess time will tell. I have no doubt there will be some growing pains, and issues will be found even after deployment. In the AC world that is almost inevitable.

The F-22 sure isn't immune either, it has had some serious growing pains.

[Biggles]

F-35B performance tests :


http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...63&c=AME&s=AIR

[stampeder]

Yeesh, a cheerleading blurb to try to take the public heat off the B version. Way to go, free press. Well... thanks but no thanks.

[gworg]

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said, "It seems to me [prudent that] we at least begin considering alternatives."

Thanks to projected incredibly high maintenance and operational cost projections we have this

Senators Want Alternatives to Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

only time will tell if this story has legs.

[cr9527]

Sorry for not replying, it has been a really busy month.

Here's an encyclopedic web site devoted to debunking F-35 technical, financial, and other claims: http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

It is operated by this fellow: http://www.ausairpower.net/CV-PAG-2007.html

Ausairpower, or in the trade, APA, should be taken with less than a grain of salt.

Dr. Kopp, head of the APA, makes many fallacious assertions, stacking the number of qualities against each other, while not accounting for the importance of the qualities.

Thanks to projected incredibly high maintenance and operational cost projections we have this

Senators Want Alternatives to Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

only time will tell if this story has legs.

As said by the same article, the 1 trillion $ price tag should not be taken as gospel. The latest estimates put it at 400-500 billion

Yeesh, a cheerleading blurb to try to take the public heat off the B version. Way to go, free press. Well... thanks but no thanks.

Cheerleading or not, the test results show that F-35 maneuvers like an F-18, with better acceleration.

I am all for purchasing wisely based on an open competition for an aircraft that actually meets our needs best.

When there is a generation gap, where the F-35 exceeds all the competitors in performing any task while costing roughly as much, why is there a need for a competition?
When our Air Force leaders have openly stated, F-35 is the right plane for us, why do you insist that that is not good enough?

Less range, sure that is true but it is smaller than a super hornet and hence can not carry internally more fuel.

F-35's range exceeds the super hornet on internal fuel.

F-35 design doesn't offer any improvement to NORAD. Well, maybe maybe not, it does add a stealth feature but you could argue ok. It's just another weapons platform like any other fighter.

Stealth package should never be overlooked. Stealth is vital when you are expecting to face any capable opponent.
Further, F-35 has already demonstrated it's capability in spotting ICBMs, and Electronic Warfare.

Yes, but mostly no. Russian air force doctrine on North American bomber patrols has not changed since the 1980s - bombers routinely patrol the coasts outside the territorial limits, and as needed they would be fitted with air-launched nuclear-tipped cruise missiles prior to one of those runs. The key is to get to the bombers before they launch any of the missiles, and the current CF-18 does an excellent job on those intercepts. Of course let's assume that to have gotten to the point of actually using such cruise missiles the continent is/was already under attack from land and submarine launched ICBMs

And if the Russians decide to send some of the latest flanker variants? Super Hornets, as well as either of the eurocanards, will have trouble keeping pace.

As for cruise missiles, they aren't end all be all. Especially with F-35, with far better passive and active sensor suite, allows it to hunt the cruise missiles far more effectively.

And as for the ICBMs, the F-35 has in tests, detected, and tracked an ICBM 1200km away.

but if the F-35 max speed is Mach 1.6, the CF-18 max speed is Mach 1.8, the Super Hornet max speed is Mach 1.8+, doesn't a faster plane make more sense

Hornets "Max" speed maybe 1.8, but that is clean configuration (minimal weapons, no external fuel), and on full afterburner. This is NOT a useful statistic.

It is also worth noting that neither of those can supercruise (sustained Mach 1.0+ without afterburners) while the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Rafale can.

Neither the Typhoon, nor the Rafale have any useful supercruise capability. They are using light weapon payloads, and can cruise at M1.1-1.2
It is not ideal to maintain that transonic speed due to drag, and cost to maneuverability.

Again, none of the aircraft available to us have any meaningful supercruise capability.

Rumors are the new Chinese 'stolentech' fighter will be able to supercruise as well.

Very possible given the length and the wing of the aircraft,

Was the Typhoon or Rafale considered ?? They would look nice in RCAF colours, and are very capable aircraft.

Both cost more than the F-35, and neither can match it in capabilities.
They are slightly faster in combat loads, but lack in stealth, sensor, and avionics.

there are better options than the F-35

No there arent. below

the cost of the F-35 is steadily climbing and has raised alarm at the highest military levels

The cost of F-35 is steadily declining, not climbing. ALL data we have today support this. It went from ~200 million, to 150 million, to now, at 110 million. And by Full rate production costs, projections put it at 90 million.

the performance is falling short of projections (slower, less range than competitors)

Top speed is insiginifcantly slower, while it has better acceleration, and equal range to the best out there.

the "kid in the candy store" syndrome is seen in some of our DND people
other DND people (Navy, Army, some Air Force) don't want their own budgets harmed by this white elephant of a deal

The head of our Air Force has stated it is the right plane for us.

[cr9527]

Finally, I'd like to quote our HEAD of the Air Force

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL ANDRÉ DESCHAMPS
CHIEF OF THE AIR STAFF

CANADIAN FORCES OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
AND THE SELECTION OF THE F-35 LIGHTNING II

HOUSE OF COMMONS STANDING COMMITTEE
ON NATIONAL DEFENCE

OTTAWA, ONTARIO
28 OCTOBER 2010

Check against delivery

Mr Chairman
Committee Members

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the high level mandatory capabilities for Canada’s next fighter aircraft.

You recently had the opportunity to hear from Mr. Dan Ross, our Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel, concerning the process being used to procure the F-35 as the best-price, best-capability and, thus, best-value fighter for Canadians under the MOU signed by the Joint Strike Fighter program partners. I will therefore focus specifically on Canada’s requirements – and the extensive analysis of options – for the fighter we will use for the next 30 to 40 years.

As I noted previously to this committee, manned fighters are essential to our ability to maintain control and sovereignty over our airspace, whether in Canada or during operations abroad. Neither unmanned aerial vehicles nor any other air platform can carry out this demanding and complex task, whether they are operating in air-to-air or air-to-ground roles. This is the same conclusion reached by many of Canada’s allies.

Following the announcement of the Government’s intent to acquire a next generation fighter in the Canada First Defence Strategy, we examined our requirements very closely and finalized them in early 2010. We looked at future and current roles and missions that our next generation fighter capability would be responsible for and the environment – physical and threat – in which it would be operating.

We need a capability that helps us carry out our core missions of defending the sovereignty of Canadian and North American airspace through NORAD, providing Canada with an effective and modern capability for international operations, and effectively conducting joint operations with our Allies through NATO or a coalition.

We need robust aircraft, capable of operating across Canada's vast geography and under harsh and varying weather conditions and deterring challenges to Canadian sovereignty.

Because we cannot afford to acquire and operate multiple, specialized fighter fleets, tomorrow’s fighter aircraft must be capable of undertaking multiple roles, which comprise a variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface combat roles. In a more generic sense, the fighter must be capable of undertaking the defence roles we demand of it, whether that is northern sovereignty patrols, intercept roles, war-fighting, surveillance and more.

Furthermore, to be prepared for the future, the aircraft must be flexible enough to deal with threats and missions that were unexpected at its time of conception.

We know that some of the threats faced by the CF-18 in the late 20th century have faded, some have continued and new ones have emerged. There is no reason for us to doubt that we will continue to see similar fluidity and evolution in threats as this century unfolds. We assume that technology will continue to evolve on various fronts, such as data processing, threat detection, weapons systems, self-defence suites, and interoperability – to give just a few examples.

Specifically our short list of high level mandatory capabilities, which are qualitative and not quantitative in nature, comprises the following characteristics.

Range: The aircraft must have the range to be capable of deploying in NORAD and NATO alert configuration, in accordance with instrument flying rules without air-to-air refuelling support, whether the aircraft is flying non-stop from a main operating base to a deployed operating base or from a main operating base to a forward operating location with one stop enroute if required.

Endurance: The aircraft must have the endurance to be capable of operating from a main operating base, a deployed operating base or a forward operating location in accordance with instrument flying rules and maintain a combat air patrol in accordance with Canadian Forces, NORAD and NATO requirements.

Speed: Our next fighter must have the speed to be capable of successfully conducting an intercept of air-breathing threats – that is to say, non-ballistic threats such as fighters or bombers – to Canadian airspace or to airspace assigned to the Canadian Forces in accordance with NORAD and NATO standards.

Air-to-Air Refuelling: The fighter must be capable of receiving fuel in-flight to extend its range and endurance.

Deployability: Our next fighter must be capable of deploying to and operating from forward operating locations domestically and worldwide in a full range of geographic, environmental, climatic and threat conditions.

Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance: The fighter must be capable of providing non-traditional intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data, before, during and following the deployment of weapons. This capability will assist targeting, intelligence and command entities in a variety of decision-making processes.

Weapons: The aircraft must precisely deliver a range of air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons in all weather conditions, day and night, and in permissive and non-permissive environments to provide a spectrum of tailored weapons effects.

Survivability: The aircraft must be capable of defending itself by employing a range of self-defence technologies and minimizing the risk of detection, engagement and damage in predicted threat environments.

Growth Potential: The aircraft must be capable of continuous upgrade to its level of interoperability, survivability and operational capabilities for the duration of its lifetime.

Fleet Size: The fleet must be large enough to conduct assigned missions and roles while simultaneously maintaining combat-ready force generation capability (that is, training new crews and maintenance of aircraft).

Certification: The aircraft must be capable of certifcation and sustainment in accordance with Canadian standards.

Delivery: The delivery times must give us the capability of achieving an initial operating capability of the new aircraft coordinated with the CF-188 Hornet’s end of lifetime. In other words, the new fighter must begin delivery in 2016 to allow overlap with the Hornet’s projected retirement in 2020 and thus avoid a gap in our defence capabilities by ensuring that such needs as trained crews are are ready to go. In procurement terms, that is almost tomorrow!

The analysis of the quantitative mandatory requirements associated with these high-level mandatory capabilities for Canada’s next fighter made it clear that only a 5th generation fighter could satisfy our mission needs in the increasingly complex future security environment.

The F-35 Lightning II is the only aircraft that meets our mandatory requirements and the only 5th generation aircraft available to Canada. The 5th generation F-22 Raptor is an excellent air superiority fighter that is being upgraded through the addition of selected capabilities that have their origin in the F-35, but the United States government does not permit foreign sales. Russia has a 5th generation under development, and China is expected to do the same.

Three key capabilities distinguish a 5th generation fighter from a 4th generation:

First, interoperability – a unique combination of stealth, long-range high resolution sensors and secure high-capacity networks that allow aircraft to communicate with one another and share data in a secure environment.

Secondly, sensors and data fusion – a system that consolidates tactical information from the sensors and off-board sources to provide pilots with a clear understanding of the tactical situation at a glance.

And, thirdly, survivability – that is very low observable stealth, advanced sensors, a comprehensive self-defence suite, and secure data-link that mean a 5th generation aircraft can accomplish more in a mission with fewer supporting assets.

It is important to be clear that a 4th generation aircraft cannot be upgraded to a 5th generation aircraft. You cannot turn a 4th generation CF-18, even a modernized version such as ours, into a 5th generation stealth aircraft.]

The F-35 Lightning II represents a revolutionary difference from previous generations of fighters in terms of capabilities, and it brings unique advantages.

It brings stealth technology – low observability – that will significantly reduce the aircraft’s electromagnetic signature and therefore reduce detection by enemy sensor systems. It provides lower risk and improved survivability for the pilot as well as enhanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities – all of which have significant relevance across the Government of Canada’s defence priorities of national, continental and international operations.

It possesses advanced sensor and data fusion technology that will gather, synthesize and display information to help pilots understand the tactical situation at a glance, make complex tactical decisions quickly, and take decisive action. The aircraft takes care of much of the data gathering and synthesis that pilots now have to do themselves, and which has become almost overwhelming in its quantity and speed. In effect, the aircraft is the co-pilot.

We will have interoperability with our partners and Allies that will be seamless, safe and effective within NORAD and NATO and on coalition operations.

The F-35 allows us to share its entire situational awareness with partner aircraft. When we go into operations abroad with coalition like-minded nations with the same platform, the aircraft are the same. Therefore, we can share resources and quickly go into an operation without weeks of training because we have the same kit and software as our partners. It makes a big difference in how we’re going to do business as a coalition.

Furthermore, the aircraft is sustainable. We will be able to replace lost aircraft – or acquire additional aircraft if the future global situation demands it – because the production line will operate until at least 2035.

Software will be upgraded on an ongoing basis and we will not have to contract individually for upgrades, bringing huge savings and keeping the aircraft up to date as technology evolves.

In conclusion, given the increasingly complex and uncertain future security environment, the F-35 Lightning II will provide Canada with the greatest probability of mission success and the greatest probability that our men and women will survive and return safely from their missions.

We are acquiring the F-35 Lightning II to protect Canadian interests and to counter tomorrow’s threats. Procured and sustained through the JSF Program, the F-35 is the best value for our taxpayer dollar, and will keep Canada at the forefront of fighter operations – enabling our fleet to remain relevant, flexible, viable and sustainable well into the middle of this century.

The F-35 Lightning II is not an unnecessary luxury. It is the right tool, at the best value, to properly do the job that Canada and Canadians want their Air Force to carry out on their behalf.

Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. I would be happy to address any questions you have about the high level mandatory capabilities for our next generation fighter.

[cr9527]

A car owner is told that his automobile is getting a bit old. He drives over to a dealership and the salesman spins a giant tale, photos, videos, and all, about the amazing promise of a new model that will hit the road in the years ahead. The car owner wants to look at new cars that do what *he* requires, but the salesman insists that only the new product, with it's not-so-great performance but at a much higher price, is absolutely the one that the customer needs. The customer asks for detailed technical and price information about the promised new model, but the salesman says "prove to me that it is not the perfect car for you, at the perfect price for what you will get". An automobile industry analyst lists those details on the web, so the car owner begins reading about it on his smartphone but the salesman ridicules the analyst and throws the phone into a vat of transmission fluid. When the livid customer complains, the manager of sales is waved over, along with an executive from a company that requested the new model in the first place, and they sing a wonderful song about how the customer will do so many terrific things with his new car, whenever it comes available. Again the customer tells them that none of their list of terrific things apply to him, but they stopped listening to anyone when they first bursted into song.

First off, the the CF-18s do NEED replacing, the airframe is only good for so long before it becomes far too costly to maintain. Our CF-18s have long reached this point, and much like our brothers to the south, their F-18s and F-15s are having major issues with maintenance, from costs, to the airframe breaking in two!

Secondly, it isn't only the industry, and LM that are saying the F-35 is best for us, it is OUR Air Force are saying it too.

The arguments for buying the F-35 for it's stealth technology, such as to defend against fighter escorts of Russian bombers, which have never before been seen on Russian bomber patrols and which are not part of Russian military doctrine, are purely invented.

And we have never before seen the Russians when they intend to do us harm, rather than playing cat and mouse.

Well you know he had me once he informed me that magically engineering doesn't fail since the 80's.

There has been very few complete engine failures since the 80s, while the MTBO(mean time between overhauls, a benchmark for reliability) has doubled since then, from ~500-1000 hours to now, 2000-3000 hours.

If so, then it would easily win a well-managed open and transparent tendering process, no matter what the price.

It is not necessary. The moment you open up a competition, you are welcoming political tactics, scandals, and long delays. Look at the recent few competitions, i.e. Indian MMRCA, Brazillian fighter competition, etc.

You simply have them compete against the current version of what we have now. The F-18F SuperHornet. Australia recently purchased brand new ones, because they had concerns about the F-35. The US is still buying new ones. Why don't we consider this?

Australia is buying super hornets as a temporary stop gap before the F-35 comes. Their aging F-111s and f-18s need to be replaced now!

As for the US Navy, the F-35 was NEVER Intended to replace the Super Hornet. That is for their 6th generation fighter program. And before you suggest waiting for those, it won't even be built until 2020.
The F-18 Super Hornets they bought are there to replace aging vikings, intruders and tomcats.

[GrimJack]

If someone from the military went on the record as being against the purchase they would rapidly find themselves out of the service.

Our government(s - of all colours) have not been ones to be interested in opinions from its workers.

[travisc]

I find this thread intriguing. On the one hand, we have regular media reports discussing how the costs of the F-35 are spiraling out of control, and there are grave concerns about the program in the US. On the other hand, we have cr927 telling us the costs are going down, and everything is great. Who to believe?