F-35 looking more like white elephant

[2R]

The Russsian bear is only one of the delivery vehicles that the former Soviet threat could launch.
Any effective defence would require a capability to destroy other future threats from hyper-sonic missile threats over the pole,
As well as low level ship/sub launched UCAV's.
One of the classic mistakes of many militaries has been to prepare for the next war with weapons and strategies from the immediately previous conflict.
Any conflict in the North will not be limited to the land sea and air it will come from space as well.
Hence the rush to build moonbases by several nations(China and India) in the next decade.

Does any elephant gun work on a white elephant or does the white elephant have thicker skin and require a special piece of kit?

[wotai139]

A10s all the way hehe

[Team Firecracker]

I'll say it again...all we need is a few nukes and we'll be just fine. No one screws with a nuclear tipped nation.

then buy some a-10's

[Mostly Harmless]

I like the A-10 as much as the next person but, it is a tank killer not a fighter.

[W5]

From the National Post:

Den Tandt: Controversial F-35 jet project could be shelved

OTTAWA — The Conservative government's controversial F-35 jet fighter project, plagued by delays, cost overruns and now economic turmoil in Europe, is at growing risk of being sharply curtailed or shelved — the defence minister's protestations notwithstanding.


"It just seems like it's slowly unravelling," said an industry insider who specializes in aircraft procurement. "It's a mess."


Peter MacKay has doggedly championed the Royal Canadian Air Force plan to purchase 65 "fifth-generation" Lockheed Martin Lightning stealth fighters to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18s. Last week MacKay sought, with only limited success, to deflect reports that the first batch of planes built by Lockheed will be incapable of communicating in Canada's far North.


This minister has a knack for projecting blithe confidence. But in this instance he is increasingly offside with other members of the cabinet and with the Prime Minister's Office, sources familiar with the situation say.


"They expected a whole bunch of kudos for doing (the F-35)," said one. "They believed this was win-win, industrially, that everybody would be happy it has kind of crept in that it just ain't so."


Indeed in defence circles, it is believed that Julian Fantino was installed as under-minister in charge of procurement partly to offset MacKay's tendency to defer to the senior military brass, in this case the air force, in matters of equipment acquisition. "He is a total advocate of the people in uniform," an industry insider said. "There have been no challenges (to the military) the whole time he's been there."


Be that as it may, MacKay has had an unenviable task, in trying to sell the F-35 purchase to a skeptical public. That's because, even according to its supporters, it's been unusual from the start. Since the aircraft is still under development, projections of its cost are estimates only. And the per-plane price tag depends on the number of units ordered for any given year.


That has made the cost an upward-moving target — originally $75-million per plane, now by most independent accounts between $115-million and $150-million — which has been politically costly, especially in a time of budget constraint.


As other members of the international F-35 consortium — including Turkey, the Netherlands, Norway, Israel and Australia have either delayed or curtailed expectations of the number of planes they will buy, price estimates have skyrocketed. But even the latest figures are just educated guesses.


"The reaction is, where's the competition, where's the bidding, and what do you mean you don't know the price?" acknowledges Senator Colin Kenny, chair of the Senate defence committee and a strong proponent of the F-35. The federal government, he says, has simply done "a lousy job" of explaining and selling the project to Canadians.


Kenny and other advocates say that when the F-35 finally begins rolling off the line in significant numbers some five years from now, it will be by far the most advanced fighter in the world, with stealth capabilities that confer a new degree of safety on Canadian pilots.


"Why would you buy a (fourth-generation) aircraft that has a clear radar profile, when you can buy one that is much harder to spot on radar, and have your flyers come home?"


Boeing's F-18 Super Hornet, often mentioned as an alternative to the F-35, is still only a "fourth-and-a-half" generation fighter, experts say.


Moreover, in an era of integrated NATO missions, it makes sense for Canada to be flying the same fighters as our allies, and to share in the economic benefits of building them. Kenny estimates that, for a $200-million initial investment, Canadian aerospace manufacturers have already garnered twice that in spinoff contracts.


But there are three elephants in the room.


The first is that, having recently announced a $35-billion naval shipbuilding program that is wildly popular on two coasts, the government is bound to it, regardless of what happens to the global economy. The mammoth contracts for shipyards in Halifax and Vancouver are job engines and vote-winners. If something big has to go, it won't be ships.


The second is that, with European leaders still struggling with the details of how they'll solve their debt crisis and prop up their banks, and the European economy slipping into what may be a long recession, orders for F-35s from the eurozone are certain to dwindle further, making the price for Canada even more prohibitive.


The third is that the Pentagon itself, without whose massive order of 2,443 jets the project is impossible, has lately been making noises of serious unhappiness about rising costs. Last May, Senator John McCain, ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, said the U.S. should "start at least considering alternatives" to the F-35.


Given a choice between a rock and a hard place, the federal government could reduce the number of aircraft purchased, thus keeping within its original projected budget window of $9-billion, reiterated by Fantino earlier this month. However, having significantly fewer than 65 aircraft would nullify the rationale for having the fighters in the first place, defence experts say.


"I honestly don't believe they can go below 65," said one. "If you do that then you have to change the mission."


mdentandt(at)postmedia.com

[adhc2]

I,m no expert by any means but common sense needs to prevail here. It seems that what they are lookin to do is,nt makin sense. Its like tryin to drive a Ferrari up to the ski hill or the 7 11 for milk. The F18 was an obvious choice for Canadas needs in the past and could be for the future considering that Canada needs the multi role capability that the 18 offers. As I understand with the refit that is occuring with a good portion of our 18,s they will be serviceable till 2020 which makes sense economically and logsticlly. In all the roles outside of our airspace they have exhibited excellent service in the support role we are usually tasked with. In sofar as protecting Northern Airspace, hell they could track those old russion Big Bears with fricken Cessnas as they are runnin so slow to conserve fuel. And whats with using a single engine fighter in remote areas like our North . They don't currently have the appropriate in flite refueling figured out yet, These short range Albatrosses have way to many other problems still to sort out along with unbelieveable cost overruns. Hell by 2020 manned fighters will likely be replaced with manless equipment anyway. Its the same mindless people who bought those British yard sale Subs.

Whats wrong with puttin all that money to work in Canada instead of givin it to the fricken Americans for bunch of flyin Edsels we can't use.

[frosti]

Talk about a misleading article title. Not once did they mention anything about cancelling the purchase. The loony toons in the anti-jsf world get another jab.

[AuxBatOn]

In all the roles outside of our airspace they have exhibited excellent service in the support role we are usually tasked with. In sofar as protecting Northern Airspace, hell they could track those old russion Big Bears with fricken Cessnas as they are runnin so slow to conserve fuel.

Support role? Really? I guess you could review what Canada did in Iraq, Kosovo and recently Libya. It was everything but support.

In sofar as protecting Northern Airspace, hell they could track those old russion Big Bears with fricken Cessnas as they are runnin so slow to conserve fuel.

How many TU-95 intercepts have you done in your lifetime?

And whats with using a single engine fighter in remote areas like our North .

It the same use as a multi-engine fighter. I have yet to hear about a catastrophic engine failure doing the mission profiles we do up North.

They don't currently have the appropriate in flite refueling figured out yet,

I have tanked off KC-135s and KC-10s more often than I have tanked on CC-130 and CC-150. If you're too lazy to look it up, KC-135 are natively air force configuration and needs a Boom Drogue Adapter to be compatible with us. The KC-10 does it both ways, so to speak.

These short range Albatrosses have way to many other problems still to sort out along with unbelieveable cost overruns.

They have a better range than the Hornet.

Hell by 2020 manned fighters will likely be replaced with manless equipment anyway. Its the same mindless people who bought those British yard sale Subs.

I doubt you'll see an Unmanned Fighter by 2020.

Whats wrong with puttin all that money to work in Canada instead of givin it to the fricken Americans for bunch of flyin Edsels we can't use.

It's not like there is a Canadian solution.

[C-GGGQ]

The F18 was an obvious choice for Canadas needs in the past and could be for the future considering that Canada needs the multi role capability that the 18 offers.

Actually the F-15 won the competition they held but they settled for the F-18 due to budget constraints.

[frosti]

The F18 was an obvious choice for Canadas needs in the past and could be for the future considering that Canada needs the multi role capability that the 18 offers.

Actually the F-15 won the competition they held but they settled for the F-18 due to budget constraints.

Incorrect. The F-14, F-15 and the rest of the European offerings were dropped because of the high price. There were three left, two versions of the F-18 and the F-16.

[C-GGGQ]

Incorrect. The F-14, F-15 and the rest of the European offerings were dropped because of the high price. There were three left, two versions of the F-18 and the F-16.

That's what I said. I had the opportunity to talk to one of the test pilots for the competition. He said the F15 was the best performer but was too expensive.

[Beefitarian]

Whats wrong with puttin all that money to work in Canada instead of givin it to the fricken Americans for bunch of flyin Edsels we can't use.

It was established in this thread that Canadians are not capable of building military aircraft of the caliber of the F-35. We can sure drink beer though so we've got that going for us.

[Guido]

Hell by 2020 manned fighters will likely be replaced with manless equipment anyway. Its the same mindless people who bought those British yard sale Subs.

I doubt you'll see an Unmanned Fighter by 2020.

I can't really see the point in arguing about this anymore since the Conservatives are going to waste our money regardless of what common sense says...

But, I really think you're wrong on this one, Aux.
Check this out:
[youtube]tH_PxXNREgg[/youtube]
http://youtu.be/tH_PxXNREgg

[frosti]

Hell by 2020 manned fighters will likely be replaced with manless equipment anyway. Its the same mindless people who bought those British yard sale Subs.

I doubt you'll see an Unmanned Fighter by 2020.

I can't really see the point in arguing about this anymore since the Conservatives are going to waste our money regardless of what common sense says...

But, I really think you're wrong on this one, Aux.
Check this out:
[youtube]tH_PxXNREgg[/youtube]
http://youtu.be/tH_PxXNREgg

That is a nice little UAV, but still decades away from service. In the mean time, we need something NOW. I'm not worried about the F35s performance, it will just about mop the floor with everything it's designed to replace. The biggest threat facing the program is cost overruns. No consequences, except for our military aviators who need new aircraft that we can afford to give them.

[Guido]

Yeah, I suppose you're right - I forgot how bad the military-industrial complex is with delivering on-time. Oh, and speaking of that... They're rushing the F-35 out the door without proper testing. Seems like the best bet for Canada, for sure!


http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/11 ... er-unsafe/

Ten months of additional testing should drive down the abort rate, give engineers time to fix technical flaws and make the F-35As safe for new pilots, Gilmore advised. But a training delay could push the date of the JSF’s combat readiness even farther into the future. Already, the jack-of-all-trades warplane is around five years behind the original schedule, severely disrupting the Pentagon’s plans for replacing its 1980s-vintage F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s.

[adhc2]

I still think we can't afford to spend that kinda of money plain and simple lets live with refitted f18s spend some money on the the rest of our military for the much needed updates. Let the americans waste money on the front line aircraft and put the money to work in more appropriate directions. Its not like the Russians are gonna attack and besides our allies would help if there was any aggression in the north. We have a capable and well respected military and have proved that time and time again with the various campaigns over the years. Why not use common sense use the money in Canada instead of giving it to the Americans. Look at the plans in place for the ship building that make real sense. We are very good at doing disaster support and there is no shortage of help needed out there. Let our military provide the aid need throughout the world a far more noble and valid endeaver.

[Expat]

+1

[AuxBatOn]

I still think we can't afford to spend that kinda of money plain and simple lets live with refitted f18s spend some money on the the rest of our military for the much needed updates. Let the americans waste money on the front line aircraft and put the money to work in more appropriate directions. Its not like the Russians are gonna attack and besides our allies would help if there was any aggression in the north. We have a capable and well respected military and have proved that time and time again with the various campaigns over the years. Why not use common sense use the money in Canada instead of giving it to the Americans. Look at the plans in place for the ship building that make real sense. We are very good at doing disaster support and there is no shortage of help needed out there. Let our military provide the aid need throughout the world a far more noble and valid endeaver.

I guess you don't need insurance on your house until you have a fire huh. The ability to protect our airspace is crucial to our sovereignty. Otherwise, other people will enforce their sovereignty on our airspace.

We also need to be able to project power. As part of alliances, we have commitments to fulfil.

Our current F-18 is a superb platform. It is multi-role, offers flexibility, has great sensors and the user still has access to raw-ish data. I truly believe we are the best multi-role platform out there, including the American F-16s and F/A-18C/E.

Having said that, they will need to be replaced. A fighter can only operate for so long. It has already been almost 30 years and to be honest, their airframe life is almost over. By the time we hit 2020, there will not be too much left of the old lady. The only viable option at the moment is the JSF. For 75M$ a piece, you get everything: Airframe, engines, EW suite, EO/IR, DAS, helmet. All the bells and whistles. Some will argue "Buy the Super Hornet". Well, surprise for all you folks, the Super Hornet cost 55M$ a piece. That doesn't include anything other than Airframe/Engines. Pylons, gun, racks, EW suite (and people that know about it know that this is the most expensive part of a weapon system), pods, helmets. Basically, everything that makes it a weapon platform is not included in the price. In the end, it would be much more expensive for way less in terms of capabilities.

But I digress. You must know more than frosti and I.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I still think we can't afford to spend that kinda of money plain and simple lets live with refitted f18s spend some money on the the rest of our military for the much needed updates. Let the americans waste money on the front line aircraft and put the money to work in more appropriate directions. Its not like the Russians are gonna attack and besides our allies would help if there was any aggression in the north. We have a capable and well respected military and have proved that time and time again with the various campaigns over the years. Why not use common sense use the money in Canada instead of giving it to the Americans. Look at the plans in place for the ship building that make real sense. We are very good at doing disaster support and there is no shortage of help needed out there. Let our military provide the aid need throughout the world a far more noble and valid endeaver.

I guess you don't need insurance on your house until you have a fire huh. The ability to protect our airspace is crucial to our sovereignty. Otherwise, other people will enforce their sovereignty on our airspace.

We also need to be able to project power. As part of alliances, we have commitments to fulfil.

Our current F-18 is a superb platform. It is multi-role, offers flexibility, has great sensors and the user still has access to raw-ish data. I truly believe we are the best multi-role platform out there, including the American F-16s and F/A-18C/E.

Having said that, they will need to be replaced. A fighter can only operate for so long. It has already been almost 30 years and to be honest, their airframe life is almost over. By the time we hit 2020, there will not be too much left of the old lady. The only viable option at the moment is the JSF. For 75M$ a piece, you get everything: Airframe, engines, EW suite, EO/IR, DAS, helmet. All the bells and whistles. Some will argue "Buy the Super Hornet". Well, surprise for all you folks, the Super Hornet cost 55M$ a piece. That doesn't include anything other than Airframe/Engines. Pylons, gun, racks, EW suite (and people that know about it know that this is the most expensive part of a weapon system), pods, helmets. Basically, everything that makes it a weapon platform is not included in the price. In the end, it would be much more expensive for way less in terms of capabilities.

But I digress. You must know more than frosti and I.

The problem with the F 35 is simple. No one knows what it will cost, and the only cost that matters is the total program cost over the life of the airframe. Right now the F 35 purchase is budgeted in the CFDS at 16 Billion to buy and operate the aircraft for 20 years. The problem comes if there is a significant cost overruns as there is a finite amount of capital procurement money that is realistically available. Significant cost overruns mean that some other equipment program in the CF does not get fully funded. Less capable equipment inevitably means more danger to the folks in harms way. In a perfect world everyone would get the very best of everything, but not even the Americans can do this. So IMO the Air Force should be careful about playing the "you are putting pilots in danger unless we get the F 35" card , because if, as seems increasingly likely, the F 35 goes seriously over budget then many of the Army vehicle programs are going to be in jeopardy, and frankly I think technology deficiencies are much more likely to lead to unnecessary deaths due to IED's for a soldier, than to a fighter pilot that gets into a situation where a 4.5 generation airplane isn't good enough to survive the mission.

Personally I think we should buy the F18E because it can be purchased for a fixed price and its operating cost are well documented as a result of almost 10 years of in service history. And BTW all of the American oversight bodies who are looking at the F 35 program estimate its actual end state unit cost to be between $95 and $125 Million per aircraft and its operating cost to be at least 25% more than an F18. Canada will pay what ever the final cost is because we have no price cap on any of the agreements in place now with Lockheed.

Aux: I get it you naturally want to fly the very best aircraft out there, But there is an institutional price to pay to give you the 100% solution. Money shouldn't matter but of course it ultimately drives everything Military. I know your Non fighter brethren are already very concerned about the F 35 program starving the rest of the Air Force. The next time you see a Naval Officer ask him what effect introducing the 4 Submarines has had on the surface fleet. Be careful what you wish for..........

[AuxBatOn]

Personally I think we should buy the F18E because it can be purchased for a fixed price and its operating cost are well documented as a result of almost 10 years of in service history. And BTW all of the American oversight bodies who are looking at the F 35 program estimate its actual end state unit cost to be between $95 and $125 Million per aircraft and its operating cost to be at least 25% more than an F18. Canada will pay what ever the final cost is because we have no price cap on any of the agreements in place now with Lockheed.

Even only looking at the price, buying the Super Hornet doesn't make much sense. I was, at one time, a big fan of the Super Hornet as a replacement. After having been informed on the program, not anymore.

Aux: I get it you naturally want to fly the very best aircraft out there, But there is an institutional price to pay to give you the 100% solution. Money shouldn't matter but of course it ultimately drives everything Military. I know your Non fighter brethren are already very concerned about the F 35 program starving the rest of the Air Force. The next time you see a Naval Officer ask him what effect introducing the 4 Submarines has had on the surface fleet. Be careful what you wish for..........

Believe me, it's not about me wanting to fly the very best aircraft. I may not even get to fly it. But I want the best capabilities we can afford. The non-fighter dudes got their C-17s, C-130Js and Chinooks. This replacement has been known to happen in the next few years for a long time. The more we wait for a solution, the more expensive it is going to be in the long run.

The CF-18 program acquisition cost was 20.21B$. Some will say "but you had 138 airframes, vice 65 for the JSF". In military aviation, especially fighter ops, more airframe is not equal to increased capabilities. We are buying a much better capability for an equivalent price tag (30B$ for 35 years for the Hornet).

If we do buy the Super Hornet, upgrades will need to be done on it quicker than people think. To give you an idea, the modernization of the Hornet fleet cost 2.6B$ for 80 airframe. That's a significant amount (compared to the JSF acquisition cost) to upgrade a 20 year old airframe.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Believe me, it's not about me wanting to fly the very best aircraft. I may not even get to fly it. But I want the best capabilities we can afford. The non-fighter dudes got their C-17s, C-130Js and Chinooks. T
.

I think the guys/gals currently driving the Aurora, Griffon, Buffalo, Polaris, Twin Otter, and the always maintenance starved Cormorants, might take exception to your implication that the "non fighter dudes" got taken care of.......

[AuxBatOn]

I think the guys/gals currently driving the Aurora, Griffon, Buffalo, Polaris, Twin Otter, and the always maintenance starved Cormorants, might take exception to your implication that the "non fighter dudes" got taken care of.......

There are programs in place for the Aurora and Buff. I doubt you'll find any Griffon, Polaris, Twin Otter or Cormorant drivers complain about their situation. When the others need a new airframe, they will get a program.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think the guys/gals currently driving the Aurora, Griffon, Buffalo, Polaris, Twin Otter, and the always maintenance starved Cormorants, might take exception to your implication that the "non fighter dudes" got taken care of.......

There are programs in place for the Aurora and Buff. I doubt you'll find any Griffon, Polaris, Twin Otter or Cormorant drivers complain about their situation. When the others need a new airframe, they will get a program.

You have obviously never talked to a Griffon pilot But seriously there are No programs in place for the Aurora and Buff that have actual money committed to them. The FWSAR program has been sent back to the Air Force FD folks at least 3 times and the P8 sticker price shock has basically killed any progress on the MMA and that is with currrent estimated program costs for the F35. Any cost overruns on that program and the situation just gets worse.........

[Big Pistons Forever]

More bad news. Slow down the production rate or reduce the total program build numbers and the price per unit goes up ............

DoD slashes F-35 orders to pay for cost overruns


Print
BY: STEPHEN TRIMBLE WASHINGTON DC 01:12 1 Nov 2011 Source:

The US Department of Defense will buy five fewer Lockheed Martin F-35s in the next yearly production contract and use the savings to cover the government's share of rising costs for manufacturing delays and development mistakes.

Orders for the fifth lot of low-rate initial production (LRIP-V) will be cut to 30 F-35s, or two fewer than awarded in the previous year, according to the programme office.

The cuts will reduce orders for the US Air Force's conventional take-off and landing F-35A and the US Navy's F-35C carrier variant, but leave the US Marine Corps' order for three short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs unchanged.

Terms for the LRIP-V contract are continuing to be negotiated between Lockheed and the programme office, one month after the fiscal year expired.

The talks have been underway since Lockheed submitted a proposal for LRIP-V in April based on a planned order for 35 aircraft, but have been complicated by cost overruns from previous years.

The government revealed in July that it owed an extra $771 million to pay for the overruns in the first three LRIP contracts. Instead of asking for more money in a declining budget environment, the programme office is paying the bill by cutting aircraft from the LRIP-V order.

It is the last step in a two-year process that has gradually reduced the LRIP-V order from 47 to 30 F-35s. Australia was the first country to postpone plans to buy four aircraft in LRIP-V.

But the US Congress made the biggest cut, trimming seven aircraft from the order. The reduction was included in a $1 billion budget cut for the overall F-35 programme.

A 30-aircraft order means the production rate will actually decline from the previous year. The LRIP-IV contract signed last November ordered 32 aircraft, including one for the UK and one for the Netherlands.

The Senate Armed Services Committee, meanwhile, wants the DoD to freeze F-35 production for another two years. The decision would devastate the programme office's original plan to sharply increase the production rate over the next five years, ultimately reaching one aircraft per day by fiscal year 2016.

The DoD has already backed away from the ramp-up plans, however. The LRIP-VI order, scheduled for award later this year, has been reduced to 38 aircraft, or 80 fewer than planned only two years ago. Ongoing budget discussions for the FY2013 budget request are considering further F-35 cuts in LRIP-VI and beyond.

[frosti]

The only reason why everyone is so hot and horny over the Super Hornet is because it has two engines. THAT IS IT. In the end, you get less capability for your dollar, it costs more per aircraft, it has TWO engines meaning less fuel capacity, more fuel consumption, twice the operating cost, twice the maintenance cost and man hours, less overall thrust combined vs the JSF, should I go on? Fact is, there is nothing out there available for Canada to purchase that meets the capability for the price. Everything is either too expensive, already obsolete or in the case of the Super Hornet, both.

More bad news. Slow down the production rate or reduce the total program build numbers and the price per unit goes up ............

Simple really, we just axe the CBC and that will cover the entire JSF program for its service life.