F-35 issues

[gworg]

Originally Posted by cr9527

Secondly, F-35 exceeds the range of the CF-18 and F-18 Super Hornet, thereby exceeds our Range requirement.

Oddly enough while it is true that the F-35 exceeds the F-18 range the F-35 still falls short of what has been claimed as our range requirement, although it comes very close.

Who knows, maybe I'm getting the various versions confused.

[cr9527]

Originally Posted by gworg

Oddly enough while it is true that the F-35 exceeds the F-18 range the F-35 still falls short of what has been claimed as our range requirement, although it comes very close.

Who knows, maybe I'm getting the various versions confused.

It is 6NM shorter than the PENTAGON's requirement based on Rough approximations from calculations done apart from real world tests. Still, it Doubles our CF-18's range, and is much longer than Super Hornet's range.

FYI... For those who still believe in PBO's cost estimate of 100+ million each...
In the same SAR paper released, it estimates by 2016, the F-35A would cost $60.85 Million USD in $2002 dollars, which in 2010's terms, is $73.30 Million USD.

Number sounds familiar?

[dirtroad]

Once again a country has taken steps to fill the gap left by the delayed release and increased costs in the F 35 deployment. Australia has just taken delivery of the first of 24 F/A-18F Super Hornets, and are considering ordering more. see Reuters.

The delays and increased costs of the F35 may have also been the cause of the long wait for the Jets to return to Winnipeg, and they too have gone to the F18 Super Hornet for the Jets Logo.

[travisc]

What ballooning costs? cr9527 has told us repeatedly that the costs are not ballooning.

[stampeder]

Prime F-35 Contractor: "Only we know how to do jet fighter accounting! Don't look behind the curtain, btw."

Canadian PMO: "Shut up and take our money!"

[gworg]

Could the F-35 be killed by the U. S. debt ceiling agreement? Maybe.

It is clear that the defense budget will be cut, though whether dramatically or modestly depends on how things play out. Even with minor cuts, military items may be lost, including the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, “a $300 billion program that is both behind schedule and over cost,” says Sharp.

BTW the fleet is currently grounded due to a power failure. I'm sure it will be resolved and all will be well.

[travisc]

Absurd. The F-35 is the best thing since sliced bread and certainly not over cost. Just ask cr9527. I'm sure he will reassure us all is well in due time.

[travisc]

Nothing to see here, move along, move along...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/a...in-arctic?bn=1

[dirtroad]

The F35's Northern Communication problem can be quickly and easily fixed along with an added fail-safe navigational aid. Of course it is going to add millions to the overall cost of the F35 Aircraft deployment but it will not create any additional delays!

[gworg]

Den Tandt: Look for Tories to bail out as F-35 woes grow

Harper has often shown an ability to execute tactical retreats with lightning speed, if he feels he's lost the high ground. Look for that to happen with the F-35, sooner rather than later, as the economic gloom deepens south of the border

[cr9527]

Yeah good luck with that.

F-35A thus far has been going without much problems.
B and C are starting to get ironed out.

Everytime the F-35 gets some problems, the media cries wolf while jumping up and down about how the program is doomed to fail. And yet it just keeps on chugging.

Even if the F-35 gets cancelled, or reduced to the extent that it would cost far too much, what alternatives are there?

Our airforce requires a fighter that can protect our airspace against future possible adversaries.
Within the next decade, both Russia and China will begin to field their own stealth fighters that would simply make the "Alternatives" flying coffins. Give it another decade, then smaller potential adversaries would be fielding monkey models of said fighters, that would still leave the Eurocanards, and other legacy fighters without much hope.

If the F-35 gets cancelled, then we'd have to leave the defence to the Americans, and just field the Super Hornet for our NATO commitments. If you are fine with this approach, then I cannot argue against it. It is a legitimate approach to save costs.

[stampeder]

Originally Posted by cr9527

Yeah good luck with that.

Ya, thanks for trying to scare us.

Originally Posted by cr9527

F-35A thus far has been going without much problems.
B and C are starting to get ironed out.

Snort. What you've just said ignores this entire thread and attempts to put an optimistic spin on the dreadful reality of the F-35 issue.

Originally Posted by cr9527

If the F-35 gets cancelled, then we'd have to leave the defence to the Americans,

Snort. Thanks for letting us know that being against the F-35 deal is not only treasonous but akin to voiding our sovereignty!

Originally Posted by cr9527

Everytime the F-35 gets some problems, the media cries wolf

When your argument drops down to the level of complaining about reporters, letter-writers, and many of our members versus the lobbying and PR campaigns of multi-billion dollar defense corporations it has therefore lost its mass and plummeted into the assinine. In this thread of over 200 posts you need to directly address previous posts that hit hardest against your beliefs. Courage is required. If you persist in your present sort of blabberry then move on, please, since it is insulting to our members.

[cr9527]

Snort. What you've just said ignores this entire thread and attempts to put an optimistic spin on the dreadful reality of the F-35 issue.

Ignores the entire thread? I've addressed everything said in the thread in previous posts. I am merely replying to the "New" information posted.

If you have got a counter-argument, spit it out.

Snort. Thanks for letting us know that being against the F-35 deal is not only treasonous but akin to voiding our sovereignty!

No... What I've stated is merely the situation Canada is faced with.
Either maintain an airforce that is capable of defending our airspace (F-35), or move to a cheaper alternative that would satisfy our NATO duties, and let the Americans defend our North.
I am NOT saying this is voiding our sovereignty, nor is it treason(NORAD).
It is simply the facts that we are dealing with here.

When your argument drops down to the level of complaining about reporters, letter-writers, and many of our members versus the lobbying and PR campaigns of multi-billion dollar defense corporations it has therefore lost its mass and plummeted into the assinine.

I am not using claims made by EITHER the Media nor Lockmart. All my data comes from the USAF Budget data, test results, and others.

In this thread of over 200 posts you need to directly address previous posts that hit hardest against your beliefs.

I have... I am not going to repost every single facts I posted several posts ago in EVERY post.

I've asked you all this before, If there is ANYTHING I have yet to address in a satisfactory manner, Do TELL!
-------------------

As a summary,

Based on data available, the F-35A will cost around 75-85 Million dollars in 2008 dollars, by 2016-2018. The recurring cost will be similar to what the Harper government estimated, all be it, the delivery date could be pushed back a year or two.

I can go through the whole thing once more.

This whole thing boils down to:
Should Canada rely on our own Air Force to defend our airspace, or should we rely on the Americans under the terms of NORAD?
If you suggest the latter, which is a VALID course of action, then it boils down to the following criteria.
1. Price
In this case, the F-18 Super Hornet presents the most ideal case for us. Not only is it's cost per unit relatively low, it's operating costs due to it's wide spread use in the US Navy will be reasonably low. It is much lower than the cost of maintaining the Typhoon and Rafale, whose factories risk shutting down due to lack of demand. The Swedish Gripen offer roughly the same cost per lifetime as the Super Hornet, however for reasons of the next point, the Super Hornet is still the better deal. Further, the Super Hornet would be able to use much of the CF-18's infrastructure, further reducing the cost.
2. Capability
The Super Hornet, while lacks some of the new techniques of the Eurocanards(Mature IRST, High Speed performance), it does have many good points going for it. The Super Hornet features a very mature and advanced AESA radar that not only excels in air to air combat, but also greatly improves air to ground accuracy and intel gathering capability. While all of the Eurocanards will be getting this in the next decade, they are not considered mature equipment. Secondly, the Super Hornet offers far superior low speed performance, as well as a very large ordinance load making it ideal for our NATO commitments., and the Only competitor that has future Low Observable upgrade kit in sight.
3. Upgradeability
As mentioned before, the Super Hornet has future upgrades planned to further reduce the radar signature beyond it's current reductions, as well as a massive upgrade to the already extremely reliable F-414 engines. Same could not be said about any of the other competitors.
4. Operational Suitability
Since none of the alternatives can stand their grounds against a 5th generation threat, All of the alternatives are more than capable of handling the current generation of threats. The Super Hornet, being the only one of the lot designed for air to ground roles, making it the most suitable for performing tasks NATO might require of us.

Now if you were to want Canada to defend our own airspace,
We would need a fighter jet that could at least stand a chance against the next generation threat. The ONLY fighter that is available to us is the F-35 that can do the task. There doesn't exist a single drone known to the public that carries out air interception missions.

Both the Eurofighter, and the Rafale have proven that they cannot reliably provide a firing solution against the F-22, another stealth fighter, at even fairly close range.

As for cost, Norway has estimated(2010-11) that the first 48-56 F-35As with Norway specific modifications(increases cost) with all the infrastructure, support and basic weapons package would total 52 Billion Nok, or 8-9 Billion USD.
This is quite similar to the 9 Billion estimate from the Harper government for 65 fighters except without the major modifications.

Again, you cannot compare these dollar for dollar due to the different details between the contracts. Either way, this is very similar to the Harper estimates, and is far from the PBO estimate of 15 Billion.

[stampeder]

Hot off the presses...

(Reuters) - The Pentagon is gearing up to restructure Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program for a third time in three years, sources said, with production of more than 120 more planes to be postponed to save money and allow more time for development.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...80404020120105

Uh-oh... thinks aren't going too well.

In the case of the F-35, military planners in the U.S., Canada and other countries had been hoping lessons learned in the past would allow for the quick development and deployment of the stealth fighter, with minimal troubleshooting after the fact.

The panel’s findings, compiled into an internal report since leaked to the Washington-based watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, clearly indicate that strategy backfired as aircraft that have already been built are loaded with problems.

“The program has been finding, and expects to continue to find, issues which will require consideration of potentially significant rework to (already-built) aircraft,” the report.

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/...y-be-the-case/

[stampeder]

A series of briefings given to the country's top air force commander last year expressed concern that the F-35's radio and satellite communications gear may not be as capable as that of the current CF-18s, which recently went through an extensive modernization.

Military aircraft operating in the high Arctic rely almost exclusively on satellite communications, where a pilot's signal is beamed into space and bounced back to a ground station.

The F-35 Lightning will eventually have the ability to communicate with satellites, but the software will not be available in the initial production run, according to a senior Lockheed Martin official.

It is expected to be added to the aircraft when production reaches its fourth phase in 2019, but that is not guaranteed because research is still underway.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...n-problem.html

Uh-oh... with delay after delay that "fourth phase in 2019" is looking more like 2020, 2021, maybe later. Imagine a pilot scrambling over the high Arctic in a single-engine aircraft, climbing towards the target but having no communication with anyone!

National Defence has asked the U.S. manufacturer whether it's possible to install a different air-to-air refuelling system on Canadian F-35s. Most other air forces in the world have stopped using what's known as a "probe and drogue" connection, opting instead for a plug-in receptacle which connects to a boom on the tanker aircraft.

The request was made because it's unclear when Canada will able to upgrade its air-to-air refuellers with the booms. Lockheed Martin says it can equip the F-35s to use both systems, but a decision on whether to spend money on modification has yet to be made.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10...n_1027335.html

Looks like the work needed to support the F-35 involves fundamental construction work on our fuel tankers to bring them in line with an old, disliked system. The surprise costs and headaches never seem to end in this dumb deal.