F/A-18E vs F-35: Why is the government still debating?

[AuxBatOn]

http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-too-stealthy-2016-8

[teacher]

I wonder why the Fiberal government of Junior is back tracking on an open competition? Fly them off against each other and see who wins! Could it be that they are afraid that the F35 will win? They could also do what the Cretin Fiberals did with the Sea King replacement and review the data and instead of choosing the winner add a "lowest cost" line in the competition and just go with the cheapest (on paper) option.

[trampbike]

Aside from the fact a single piece of metal through its one and only engine will turn this airplane into junk.

How big a piece of metal? How likely is it going to happen?

[Rockie]

Aside from the fact a single piece of metal through its one and only engine will turn this airplane into junk.

How big a piece of metal? How likely is it going to happen?

How big? An AOA probe trashed one of mine so a 20mm round will probably do it. How likely? How likely is it people will be shooting at it? How likely is it the jet will ingest debris from one of its kill? How likely is it the jet will ingest a large bird. All good questions.

Nobody was shooting and me and yet a piece of metal still destroyed one of my engines. Good thing I had two of them since you mentioned survivability.

[trampbike]

Nobody was shooting and me and yet a piece of metal still destroyed one of my engines.

Good thing the F-35 isn't equipped with one of your engines.

[Rockie]

Nobody was shooting and me and yet a piece of metal still destroyed one of my engines.

Good thing the F-35 isn't equipped with one of your engines.

Seriously? Is the F-35's made of Kryptonite or something, the same stuff Captain America's shield is forged from perhaps and thus impervious to damage?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Hmmmm

Fly the F35A or the F18E

There is a great saying about how you never want to fly the "A" model of any airplane......

Seriously though F35 FOC is now pushed back to 2021, for an aircraft built against a 1998 SOR.

Personally I think advancements in unmanned technology will make this aircraft essentially obsolete before the last one is built.

I see a lot of similarities to Naval Warfare in the early 1920's. The established orthodoxy was that Naval power projection should be built around a force of Battleships. Proponents of aircraft carriers as the future of Naval Warfare were considered as delusional eccentrics, yet 15 years later Battleships were effectively irrelevant.

Substitute 5th gen manned fighters with Battleship and Drones for aircraft carriers and I think you have the exact same dynamic.

There are huge institutional desire and vested interests in maintaining the status quo but the realities of disruptive technology are not going to go away.

My 2 cents. Buy the F 18 because it is proven, available quickly and has cost certainty, but understand it is an interim capability and start thinking now about how we want to integrate unmanned technologies into future air effects

[AuxBatOn]

Yeah that F-18A was a real big mistake...

The F-35A is IOC and brings more capabilities now than the SH will ever have...

[Big Pistons Forever]

Yeah that F-18A was a real big mistake...

The F-35A is IOC and brings more capabilities now than the SH will ever have...

10 years after the first flight of the F 35A the USAF can only field 14 airplanes at IOC. These airplanes have a 3 G maneuvering limit, a 138 pound minimum pilot weight, no laser designator for the CAS mission, the reliability of the new software load required for the IOC designation has been "improved" so that it on average only crashes every 15 hours, and an engine that can only deliver 1/3 of the contracted TBO. In addition the integrated logistic system that supports the aircraft was described as a unacceptably deficient in almost all areas by the IG's office.

I think I this pie is a long way from fully baked....

[Gannet167]

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/08/06/outgoing ... -military/

“If I were king for a day, rather than providing more oversight and controls over National Defence, I’d simply give us clear direction as to the outcomes we’re looking for, with predictable and sustained funding, and then I’d get out of the way and watch,” Thibault said.

“And you would be amazed.”

[AuxBatOn]

F-22A (another debacle by your arbitrary standards): first flight in 1997. IOC in 2005. Yep, real horrible airplane.

3g: that was a measure while they fixed the air in the fuel issue. Up to 7g now.
138 lb seat limit: CF-18s are limited to 140 lb.
No laser: The only time you really need a laser is for hitting movers with Laser Guided Munitions. There are other ways to do this. Not necessary, especially with its sensors.
ALIS: not required for maintenance. It's a new thing that is merely nice to have.

Other two: that's why it's IOC and not FOC.

Nice try though.

[trampbike]

These airplanes have a 3 G maneuvering limit

Not anymore

a 138 pound minimum pilot weight

Lol... So what?

no laser designator for the CAS mission

Again... so what?

EDIT: Oops, I see that AuxBatOn beat me to the response!

[Big Pistons Forever]

The fighter jet “remains immature and provides limited combat capability,” Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon’s director of operational test and evaluation, told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, adding that the F-35 has “many unresolved significant deficiencies.”

Gilmore reported that the F-35’s latest operating system has 931 open documented deficiencies, 158 of which are Category 1 – classified as those that could cause death, severe injury, or severe illness. He called the current testing and deployment schedule “unrealistic” and estimated that the software won’t be ready before late 2018.

Of particular concern is the fighter’s onboard computer, known as the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS). When the latest version of the software was delivered for testing last month, “it was so unstable that productive flight testing could not be accomplished,” Gilmore testified. A scheduled electronic warfare mission that was to involve four F-35s with Block 3F software was cancelled when only two managed to make it to the range. The other two planes never took off, “due to avionics stability problems during startup.”

Three out of five F-35s currently considered operational have been grounded due to software problems, Gilmore explained. There are mechanical problems too – notably, the ejector seat that may kill pilots weighing less than 136 pounds (62 kg) and has “serious problems” with those weighing over 165 pounds (75 kg). For pilots weighing anywhere in between, about a quarter of all aviators, the evaluators estimated a 23 percent probability of death during ejection, and a 100-percent probability of neck injury.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement from an inside the beltway source........

Not to worry there Tramp . This program is too big to fail. Eventually the bugs will be worked out but it is clear that the final definitive FOC version, potentially not available in meaningful numbers until 2025, will be significantly less capable than initially envisioned and have a final unit cost more than double what was initially projected. The danger that it will be functionally obsolete when enough frames are available to make a difference, is IMO significant and can not be ignored.

However ultimately the question is what is best for Canada. I get what is in it for the US. It fits well into their grand strategy of battlefield supremacy everywhere and all the time, in every battle space via a heavily information integrated joint battlespace. The case for Canada is IMO opinion a lot harder articulate. Most of the F 35 capabilities can not be utilized unless the aircraft is deployed inside the USAF operational enablers. It then becomes just another USAF asset that happens to have a maple leaf on the side.

Finally The "so what" of having this airplane in terms of how it contributes to Canada's foreign policy and then by extension defense, goals has never really been examined. Sadly this is what happens when successive governments
can't answer the two big questions

1) Why do we have a Military and,

2) What do we want it to do ?

So in the meantime we to continue to throw money away on keeping the existing used up CF 18 flying well into the 2020's because we can't ever seem to have an adult conversation about the role of Canada's Military now and into the future, the essential and vital precursor to any discussion on what assets to purchase......

[trampbike]

Finally The "so what" of having this airplane in terms of how it contributes to Canada's foreign policy and then by extension defense, goals has never really been examined. Sadly this is what happens when successive governments
can't answer the two big questions

1) Why do we have a Military and,

2) What do we want it to do ?

So in the meantime we to continue to throw money away on keeping the existing used up CF 18 flying well into the 2020's because we can't ever seem to have an adult conversation about the role of Canada's Military now and into the future, the essential and vital precursor to any discussion on what assets to purchase......

I totally agree with you on this. When it comes to your technical assesment of the capabilities of the jet though, I think you're way out of your lane.