The F-35 is not dead

[frosti]

4. That said, the question remains: do the F-35's 5th generation capabilities provide enough benefit over a 4.5 generation SH to justify the additional acquisition and operating costs, given reasonable assumptions around the likely RCAF mission profile?

I'd like to know how much it's going to cost operating a fleet of Super Hornets well into the decade once the US stops flying and funding upgrades for them. It's going to be ground hog day all over again, trying to source parts that don't exist in the system any more (carrier specific features like complicated landing gear systems and wing folding adds unnecessary down time for maintenance - we'd be better off buying Air Force specific fighters for the Air Force). Along with parts, we will have to fund upgrades sole-sourced (maybe the Aussies will still fly them), has anyone taken that into account? What about participating in future coalition conflicts with allies that fly F-35s, they wouldn't let a non-stealth, radar rich target like the Super Hornet fly next to a package of stealth F-35s. Another thing, was Boeing offering the Blk3 SH with the newer and more powerful F414EPE engines for $50 million? The article doesn't say. The Super Hornet is a fine aircraft, however it would've been of better use in Canadian hands 10 years ago, instead we decided to spend Billions trying to keep old airframes flying. The battlefield is evolving and the Super Hornet doesn't have much room left for future upgrades like the F-35 does.

I don't normally like to quote Sun articles but they seem to sum it up nicely in this video.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/videos/featu ... 4186587001

[YYZSaabGuy]

4. That said, the question remains: do the F-35's 5th generation capabilities provide enough benefit over a 4.5 generation SH to justify the additional acquisition and operating costs, given reasonable assumptions around the likely RCAF mission profile?

I'd like to know how much it's going to cost operating a fleet of Super Hornets well into the decade once the US stops flying and funding upgrades for them. It's going to be ground hog day all over again, trying to source parts that don't exist in the system any more (carrier specific features like complicated landing gear systems and wing folding adds unnecessary down time for maintenance - we'd be better off buying Air Force specific fighters for the Air Force). Along with parts, we will have to fund upgrades sole-sourced (maybe the Aussies will still fly them), has anyone taken that into account?

This is a complete non-issue: any procurement, whether for the SH, the F-35, or any one of the competing platforms, will obviously require an OEM commitment for lifetime support, spares, parts supply, etc.

What about participating in future coalition conflicts with allies that fly F-35s, they wouldn't let a non-stealth, radar rich target like the Super Hornet fly next to a package of stealth F-35s.

Probably not, but that wouldn't preclude operating concurrently with allied F35s on different taskings. The F-35s would be presumably be dedicated to achieving and maintaining air superiority; less-stealthy aircraft would be tasked with close air support, interdiction, and recon (if required over and above satellite and drone assets) ops. Given that the U.S. for strategic political, as well as basic budgetary, reasons is going to be much more inclined to ensure allied support is in place for future operations, interoperability is something they are going to be much more incented to make happen. The days of the U.S. operating as world policeman are over.

I don't normally like to quote Sun articles but they seem to sum it up nicely in this video. http://www.edmontonsun.com/videos/featu ... 4186587001

Frosti, I watched the video, and I totally get why you don't like to quote the Sun! David Perry (the CDA analyst) did a pretty good job of defusing most of the dumbass comments made by the host, who was clearly trying to flog some life into a non-story. I think most observers "get" that the disparity in F-35 cost estimates results from a failure to differentiate between acquisition vs.operating costs, as well as from extending the analysis period from the original 20 years to 42 years: it's not much of a stretch to understand that costs are going to go up when you double the analysis period! Perry also emphasized that the F-35 acquisition and op costs are not yet known, and that the whole point of the reset is to undertake an independent market analysis which will compare acquisition and lifetime operating/sustainment costs across all of the aircraft under consideration, including the SH and the F-35. I notice he very gracefully ducked any response to the host's comments around "hysteria" and "anti-Harper, anti-Mackay, anti-military bias" (paraphrasing here). I don't see anybody on AvCanada getting hysterical about this, and I don't think that simply questioning the details around a multi-billion-dollar, multi-year defense procurement program necessarily reflects any kind of bias (except maybe one in favour of getting the facts straight).

I notice Perry also concluded that the decision will ultimately come down to whether the F-35's stealth and sensor capabilities provide a big enough advantage to justify the expected cost premium, a conclusion several of us reached, and have been pointing out, for a while now.

[Old fella]

"The days of the U.S. operating as world policeman are over.... "


Actually that started in 1975 with the last helicopters from the roof American Embassy in Siagon. It was established the USA can be defeated by small country that wished to unite and use any means to do so. The world took note...........

Vietnam had the distinction of defeating three major powers: China, France and the USA.

[iflyforpie]

"The days of the U.S. operating as world policeman are over.... "


Actually that started in 1975 with the last helicopters from the roof American Embassy in Siagon. It was established the USA can be defeated by small country that wished to unite and use any means to do so. The world took note...........

Vietnam had the distinction of defeating three major powers: China, France and the USA.

Four.... Japan.

[Expat]

And Afghanistan?...

[frosti]

This is a complete non-issue: any procurement, whether for the SH, the F-35, or any one of the competing platforms, will obviously require an OEM commitment for lifetime support, spares, parts supply, etc

Yes but who will research, develop and fund future upgrades? Come 2030 when the US is winding down operation of the Hornet fleet, we'd only have 10 years of service in ours. Does the $40b for 40 years cover all the extra $Billions it will take to upgrade our fleet to make them relevant again? At least with the F35 you'll have multiple international partners, along with the US, who would be in it together reducing costs immensely.

[Colonel Sanders]

Come 2030 when the US is winding down operation of the Hornet fleet

You harp endlessly on that, but the fact is that they WON'T
because everyone will have bought new Hornets instead
of F-35's, requiring extended support from Boeing from
them, which they will be happy to provide.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Yes but who will research, develop and fund future upgrades? Come 2030 when the US is winding down operation of the Hornet fleet, we'd only have 10 years of service in ours. Does the $40b for 40 years cover all the extra $Billions it will take to upgrade our fleet to make them relevant again? At least with the F35 you'll have multiple international partners, along with the US, who would be in it together reducing costs immensely.

I should reiterate here that I'm not necessarily favouring the SH or any of the other aircraft on the review list over the F-35: I just don't want it assumed that the F-35 is a slam-dunk without a thorough review of the alternatives.

I take your point about upgrades, but there are a few counterarguments. First, the F-35 may well be upgraded during its service life, and I don't think the current price includes unlimited free upgrades - they will have to be paid for as well. Yes, we will benefit from the upgrade R&D that the US undertakes, but there's no guarantee that what they view as desirable upgrades will be what we want to see on our aircraft, so hitching our wagon to their R&D star is not necessarily an optimal approach. Their technology may not even be made available to us in spite of our position as a long-term ally and strategic partner: look no further than the F-22.

Let's assume for a moment we do buy the SH. A lot can change between now and 2030, and it's not impossible that the US DoD will decide to continue supporting its SH fleet for cost and other reasons. We could potentially coat-tail on that upgrade work. If the AAF and the RCAF buy the SH in lieu of the F-35, odds are that some of the other F-35 buyers may also reconsider and buy the SH as well, in which case upgrade programs and associated costs could be managed on a shared basis. Depending on the mission profile the RCAF selects, it's possible that radical upgrades may not even be necessary during the SH's service life: it's a pretty capable 4.5 gen platform as it stands. And to go out on a limb, it's possible that anything we buy today will be functionally obsolete by 2030 because UCAV technology will displace it, in which case the upgrade concern is moot.

I guess the bottom line is that fighter selection is a complicated and expensive decision that is going to be very difficult to get right. And all several of us are saying is that all of the alternatives should be considered carefully: while the F-35 may ultimately get the nod, it shouldn't be the platform of choice just because it was already selected once. Things change.

[Big Pistons Forever]

This is a complete non-issue: any procurement, whether for the SH, the F-35, or any one of the competing platforms, will obviously require an OEM commitment for lifetime support, spares, parts supply, etc

Yes but who will research, develop and fund future upgrades? Come 2030 when the US is winding down operation of the Hornet fleet, we'd only have 10 years of service in ours. Does the $40b for 40 years cover all the extra $Billions it will take to upgrade our fleet to make them relevant again? At least with the F35 you'll have multiple international partners, along with the US, who would be in it together reducing costs immensely.

The US Navy has allready started a life extension program office for the F 18 E/F. They have publicly stated that they intent to operate this airframe to 2040.

The reason the Australian F 18 cost more than the US Navy order was because of the smaller size of the order and the fact that Air Force wanted the aircraft Growler capable as well as the cost of some avionics customization. It is worth noting that even if the Australians paid $ 100 Million each, that is still lower than any unit cost figure estimate by the US office of the inspector General.

We can continue debating the "value" of the unique to the F 35 capabilities from a force employment perspective but it seems pretty clear that it will cost more than a legacy fighter like the F 18 E, both for the initial costs as well as for total costs over the life cycle of the airframe.

[Instructor_Mike]

pretend they want to play with the big boys in other parts of the world

Has it ever occurred to you that Canada is a small
country with sovereign debt problems which simply
can't afford to "play with the big boys", as you put it?

If you were a sailor, you would be hollering that we
need to spend many more billions on ships to "play
with the big boys". Maybe we should blow a billion
dollars on used British submarines?

If you were in the army, you would be hollering that
we need to spend many more billions on tanks and
artillery and assault helicopters to "play with the big
boys".

Frosti: we simple Canadian taxpayers can't afford you.

I was explaining to my American friends a while back
that all Canada owned was four (count them, four)
C-17's for our entire military. They laughed and laughed.
But do you remember how difficult it was to get funding
for that purchase? A billion dollars, for just 4 aircraft.

+1

We have roughly 10% of the population and GDP as the US but nearly the same land mass. The US coast guard (approx 87,000 personnel) is 75% as large our entire armed forces (115,000) based on numbers from Wikipedia.

[Rockie]

We have roughly 10% of the population and GDP as the US but nearly the same land mass.

Actually Canada has a larger land mass than all of the United States by roughly 100,000 square kilometers. The United States has around 31.6 people per square kilometer vs. 3.3 for Canada. And while the American population is weighted toward the eastern part of the country, 90% of Canada's population is located within 50 kilometers of the US border.

The vast majority of the United States doesn't contend with the environmental issues most of Canada does either.

[Instructor_Mike]

Yeah, I just said roughly since I wasn't worried about getting down to the specifics and doing the calculations but since you brought it up, I'll do it. This is what happens when I can't sleep Numbers are from Wikipedia but should be ok for comparison.

Canada
9,984,670 km2 total area with 8.9% water territory so roughly 9,096,000 km2 of land
The US
9,826,675 km2 total area with 6.7% water territory so roughly 9,168,000 km2 of land

By my calculations, we have more area, but actually a little less land mass. I likely have made a mistake since it's past midnight.

The specifics are irrelevant to the point that with our size but serious lack of population and GDP, we can't afford to even pretend to be in the same league as the US as far as military. We are 12 year olds playing pond hockey next to an NHL rink.

[frosti]

but the fact is that they WON'T
because everyone will have bought new Hornets instead
of F-35's,

Maybe in your own little world of fantasy. In reality the F35 is the future jet for the future battlefield. I know new complicated things scare old folk like yourself but perhaps its just time to let the new generation take over.

Something for you older folks to read: "The F-35 and the Future of Power Projection" http://www.ndu.edu/press/the-f-35.html

I just don't want it assumed that the F-35 is a slam-dunk without a thorough review of the alternatives.

Isn't that is what's being done right now?

http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/-1766610.htm

The Harper Government is committed to a transparent and rigorous process to replace its CF-18 fleet. As part of the Harper Government's Seven-Point Plan, Public Works and Government Services Canada, on behalf of the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat, today announced the awarding of a $56,217.50 contract to Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton to conduct an independent review of the application of National Defence's life-cycle cost estimates as part of the upcoming 2013 Annual Update to Parliament on the Next Generation Fighter Capability.

In the fall of 2012, KPMG was contracted to develop a life-cycle cost framework guided by Government of Canada policies and international best practices, to inform the development of full life-cycle cost estimates for the Next Generation Fighter Capability program. The purpose of this contract awarded today is to ensure that this framework is appropriately applied by National Defence and that the cost estimates in the upcoming 2013 Annual Update are sound. The Secretariat will manage the work conducted under this independent review, which will be completed after receipt of the annual costing forecasts from the Joint Strike Fighter Program office ....

so hitching our wagon to their R&D star is not necessarily an optimal approach.

If that is the case, it would be better imo than upgrading a fleet on our own.

while the F-35 may ultimately get the nod, it shouldn't be the platform of choice just because it was already selected once.

I don't think any contracts have been signed yet. There is also the problem of thousands of aerospace jobs on the line if the F35 gets the can in Canada. I'm sure the CBC will run a nice fifth estate program on all the lost jobs.....

Anyway, since this thread is just a rehash of the same thing over there is not much left to discuss. I'm sure it'll be bumped with the usual BS non sense from the clueless media and so-called "experts". On that note I'll just leave you all a reminder: http://whythef35.blogspot.com.au/2013/0 ... -clue.html

"Unfortunately when talking about the F-35, the discussion has become very polarized. And just as unfortunately, those who are critics of the program tend to do a lot of talking about a subject they seem to know little about or are prone to misrepresent it or both. It would be nice, for once, to see a critic take on the real F-35 and talk about it's capabilities and it's purpose instead of, as usual, tearing into a straw F-35 they invent out of their ignorance."

[scot]

Oh, just surrender to someone nice. Maybe to Denmark, or Sweden.

[Colonel Sanders]

the F35 is the future jet for the future battlefield

You are using circular logic. If lots of people buy the SH
Boeing will be very happy to support it, and there goes
your argument.

Something for you older folks to read

Something for you young folks to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war

Oh, I forgot. You don't like to learn. Sorry 'bout that.

The video format war is now a highly scrutinized event
in business and marketing history ...

What Sony did not take into account was what the consumers wanted. While Betamax was believed to be the superior format in the minds of the public and press (due to excellent marketing by Sony), consumers really wanted an affordable VCR (a VHS often cost hundreds of dollars less than a Betamax); Sony believed that having better quality recordings was the key to success, and that consumers would be willing to pay a higher retail price for this, whereas it soon became clear that consumer desire was focused more intently on recording time, lower retail price, compatibility with other machines for sharing (as VHS was becoming the format in the majority of homes), brand loyalty to companies who licensed VHS (RCA, Magnavox, Zenith, Quasar, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, even JVC itself, et al.), and compatibility for easy transfer of information.

Is there anything here for the "young folk" to learn about
business and marketing? Any parallels here?

I guess not.

[Expat]

the F35 is the future jet for the future battlefield

You are using circular logic. If lots of people buy the SH
Boeing will be very happy to support it, and there goes
your argument.

Something for you older folks to read

Something for you young folks to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war

Oh, I forgot. You don't like to learn. Sorry 'bout that.

The video format war is now a highly scrutinized event
in business and marketing history ...

What Sony did not take into account was what the consumers wanted. While Betamax was believed to be the superior format in the minds of the public and press (due to excellent marketing by Sony), consumers really wanted an affordable VCR (a VHS often cost hundreds of dollars less than a Betamax); Sony believed that having better quality recordings was the key to success, and that consumers would be willing to pay a higher retail price for this, whereas it soon became clear that consumer desire was focused more intently on recording time, lower retail price, compatibility with other machines for sharing (as VHS was becoming the format in the majority of homes), brand loyalty to companies who licensed VHS (RCA, Magnavox, Zenith, Quasar, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, even JVC itself, et al.), and compatibility for easy transfer of information.

Is there anything here for the "young folk" to learn about
business and marketing? Any parallels here?

I guess not.

And Phillips' Video 2000 did not stand a chance, even if it was superior technology.

[2R]

Pay attention to the next round of Pentagon cuts next month.
They have already cut back on the Turkish balistic bases and more BIG cuts are coming.The Russians told the Americans that all bets would be off if the balistic bases went ahead.Kennedy backed down in the first Turkish missile crisis (or the Cuban missile crisis as reported in NA)Now, Obama has backed down and Hagel is using budget cuts to obfuscate the fact that the Russians are not going to allow an arms race to be lost this time.Budget cuts will be the political tool used to cancel programmes before any new Arms race is started.A race that a heavily indebted country cannot afford to get involved with.
Stealth weapons and first strike weapons will be banned from areas where there presence might provoke a response.
After the recent diplomatic win by Putin to pressure the Americans to cancel the missile bases in Turkey,expect large budget cuts to all of NATO this year.
The F-35 will be cut soon, so do not expect to see NATO with three thousand of them.

[Moose47]

G'day

http://www.canadianmilitaryhistory.ca/r ... rd-goette/

Cheers...Chris

[x-wind]

Who wins?
Su-27 verses a F-18 near the North Pole.

In 2004, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, "I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter."[96][97]

Interesting insights 2R.

[YYZSaabGuy]

Who wins?
Su-27 verses a F-18 near the North Pole.

In 2004, United States Air Force Chief of Staff General John P. Jumper said after flying the Eurofighter, "I have flown all the air force jets. None was as good as the Eurofighter."[96][97]

Interesting insights 2R.

In fairness (and to save Frosti having to post it ) the F-35's first flight wasn't until December 2006.

[YYZSaabGuy]

This thread has simmered down a bit, so it's time to dust it off and get things going again.
It looks as though Canada is not the only F-35 development partner having second thoughts. From a March 18 article in Flightglobal:

Four rivals to enter Danish dogfight
Craig Hoyle London 12:37 18 Mar 2013

"Four bidders are to contest Denmark's next-generation fighter requirement, after Copenhagen decided to consider alternatives to its planned procurement of up to 48 Lockheed Martin F-35As.

Boeing, the Eurofighter consortium and Saab have been approached to provide information about their respective F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Typhoon and Gripen E platforms, as part of a process to be conducted within the framework of the Danish defence agreement for 2013 to 2017.

The Royal Danish Air Force has a current fleet of 36 F-16AM fighters and 11 BM-version trainers

"We are ready to develop a strategic partnership with Denmark and provide opportunities for significant collaboration with Europe's leading industrial nations," says Eurofighter chief executive Enzo Casolini. The Typhoon had previously been on offer to Copenhagen, until then-campaign lead company EADS withdrew from the process in late 2007, alleging that it was skewed in favour of the F-35.

Selection of the Typhoon would result in reduced costs for the Royal Danish Air Force, through "logistics, training and interoperability during coalition missions", Eurofighter claims. Its multi-role combat aircraft is already operated by core programme partner air forces Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.

Saab, which has long pitched its next-generation Gripen as a potential choice for Denmark, points to Sweden's recent commitment to acquire 60 E-model examples, along with a planned Swiss air force order for 22. In a statement, the manufacturer cites its ability to deliver an aircraft with "operational capabilities that are second to none, and to a cost for operating that appeals to ministers of finance and taxpayers".

"We are looking forward to receiving more information about the process [in Denmark]," says Lennart Sindahl, head of Saab's aeronautics business area.

Denmark's involvement as a Level 3 partner in the F-35 programme has been set at the potential procurement of up to 48 aircraft in the Joint Strike Fighter's A-model conventional take-off and landing configuration. Lockheed had previously said that it expects the nation to make a decision on buying the type later this decade. Denmark has been expected to acquire up to 48 F-35A Joint Strike Fighters.

The selected combat aircraft will replace the Royal Danish Air Force's current inventory of Lockheed F-16s. Its fleet totals 36 AM-variant fighters and 11 two-seat BM-model trainers, which Flightglobal's MiliCAS database records as having been delivered between 1980 and 1989."

[hoptwoit]

This is brought to us by the Sun news so if you are a fan of Justin's hair you may be sceptical but here it is anyway.

https://event.on24.com/eventRegistratio ... e=register

[Rockie]

This is brought to us by the Sun news so if you are a fan of Justin's hair you may be sceptical but here it is anyway.

Does that mean if you are a fan of Ezra Levant you'll believe everything a salesman tells you?

[hoptwoit]

Only if he is selling hair products.

In all seriousness though I posted this because it may be some interesting information. On the other hand it may not. Depends on the target audience. As always listen and come to your own conclusions.

[kamikaze]

Let's revive this thread with some of the latest news!

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/22 ... by-tories/

This is more political financial than about anything aviation at this point mind you ...

But the fact they're digging into all their other funds to try and simply pay the purchase price is certainly sounding real worrisome ...