F-35 looking more like white elephant

[Conestoga]

This is what I think about the F35. It is a great piece of engineering that came about with to many compromises set from the beginning of the program in the late 1990s. A déjà vu of the F111. One fuselage for three totally different models and cost saving as a major expectation. Up to now, it is failing in all three models. The aerodynamic performances are scary, being an underperformer. It is late to enter service and cost too much. The f35 must be stealthy at all time if it is to have a chance in combat or enter hostile air space. I can guarantee that the F35 will not stay stealthy for 30 years in Canadian hands. I can assure you that Canada has no idea of what it takes to keep this aircraft stealthy. Any pilot needs airtime. The more training you have on type the better chance you have to perform. The F35 will be no more than a 3D prop in a hangar with few airtime hours on them. Sad! Here is why.
In aviation no matter how perfect the situation may be there are mishaps of all kinds. When it come to keeping the outer skin of an aircraft perfect as it will need to be on F35s, that is pure insanity for us Canadian. The amount of time and maintenance to fix any simple dent, nick, scratch and major structural mishap will be too overwhelming to upkeep and costly for only 65 aircraft of one type to rely on. Simple things as the maintenance engineer making dents or scratches, the fueler personel bumping into the wing of the A/C with his fuel truck. Bird strike, lighting strike and towing incidents. These things happen in the military or general aviation on a constant base. Plus any under wing payload will void stealth. I would be impressed if our Canadian F35 last 15 years with full stealth capability. I am very scared that we will pay for stealth technology that will end up not being stealthy. Then what do we have. Not much and we are stuck with it for the next 30 plus years. If we really need to penetrate hostile territories to drop bombs, let start looking at buying drones, because that is were we are at with technology today. The F35 cannot dogfight, may be capable of intercepting, but without stealth, why have F35s at the first place. Intercepting mission is the need in our airspace, but if our F35 are to carry aim-9 Sparrow missiles, it better never face a modern fighter. A missile gives your position and is not a sure hit. Yes the F35 better hit first or it is toasted.
Personally I believe Canada should already be flying F18F and perhaps a few F18G, but because we are late, I would order 50 F18 Super Hornet to get us by for the next 15 year. Keep our old F18 on life support like L-3 has so well done since the 1990s. And frankly, Canadian CF18 never really had any major impact or roll to play. I think right now the F35 is a too big to fail investment and NATO countries are worried.

[Rockie]

It seems the conservatives have successfully created a diversion blaming the increased cost of the F35's on accounting practices. What a relief it is to know Lockheed Martin is including the cost of pilots, fuel, shoe laces and boot leather into the total cost of the airplanes.

Rockie said "The liberals were decimated for something far less than this F35 fiasco,"

Losing 500 million dollars in cancellation fees for the EH-101's we badly needed, Shawinigate, AdScam, the Long Gun Registry and Jane Stewart's HRDC 'Billion Dollar Boondoggle'. You're so right Rockie, they were pale in comparison to the F-35 controversy.

Well, yes. $10 billion does dwarf everything you've just mentioned put together and we haven't even started talking about the true cost of the crime bill yet. For a little extra icing you can also throw in the $50 million Tony Clement and John Baird misappropriated and lied to parliament about.

[Moose47]

Conestoga said "Canadian CF18 never really had any major impact or roll to play.

This statement is 100% Grade 'A' bulls*it buddy!

Cheers...Chris

[iflyforpie]

So far, we received almost double what we invested in the JSF program since 1997 in industrial benefits.

Which has very little to do with whether we actually buy the aircraft or not.

100% right, and I never implied otherwise.

I simply was responding to that:

Well you can't very well cut what you've already spent now can you.

At least somebody is putting the brakes on the program.

I'm still curious as to whom is actually putting the brakes?

It's very tough to debate with a moving target and it seems like the F-35 supporters have extensive experience at spinning things around.

First, it seems like they behave the F-35 is a given, and that we've already committed resources and monies to its inevitable purchase.

Next, they turn around and say 'oh, nothing's been bought yet, so what are you complaining about?'

I suppose 'putting the brakes on' is ambiguous as well, as I didn't mean the program was cancelled, just no longer blindly going ahead full-steam towards an unconditional purchase.

So I am going to put it in simple objective terms. The current fiasco will greatly reduce the chance of Canada ever operating the F-35.

[frosti]

The current fiasco will greatly reduce the chance of Canada ever operating the F-35.

What fiasco, you mean the spinning the media does which the majority of Canadians don't care about?

This statement is 100% Grade 'A' bulls*it buddy!

Like I said, your average Canadian doesn't know, thus doesn't care.

[Rockie]

What fiasco, you mean the spinning the media does which the majority of Canadians don't care about?

Listening to you one would think this is all a media conspiracy and the jets are going to cost exactly what the conservatives said they would all along.

You keep right on believing that...

[trampbike]

Far from speaking about media conspiracies, would you agree that the F35 coverage is way too dramatic and simplified?
I remember reading an article in the US talking about "drastical cuts" that would cause costs to "explode". The article did not mention any numbers. I checked it out thought, and the drastical cuts were actually just a couple (5 or 13, can't remember) of delayed purchase for the 2013 fiscal year.

[frosti]

Far from speaking about media conspiracies, would you agree that the F35 coverage is way too dramatic and simplified?
I remember reading an article in the US talking about "drastical cuts" that would cause costs to "explode". The article did not mention any numbers. I checked it out thought, and the drastical cuts were actually just a couple (5 or 13, can't remember) of delayed purchase for the 2013 fiscal year.

The only news that sells is bad news..or as I'd like to call CBC reporting, tabloid journalism.

[Mach1]

Conestoga: I'm amazed. I cannot believe someone with first hand flight test experience and access to classified information openly discusses these things on this board!! That is incredible to me. You seem to have all the fact and figures and I do wish you would publish them to back your statements. After all, there are some big things said in here such as

The aerodynamic performances are scary, being an underperformer.

or,

The f35 must be stealthy at all time if it is to have a chance in combat or enter hostile air space.

and.

The F35 cannot dogfight

. Now I am neither for nor against the F-35 purchase but, given the fact the the airplane has yet to face off with a foreign foe, I cannot imagine how you can make such statements as fact unless you have access to some serious classified information or you know of some combat missions flown that the rest of us do not know about. Now, in all seriousness, please enlighten us as to how you are so knowledgeable about the performance characteristics and combat capability of this aircraft, and using press clippings taken from the brochure don't count. If, however, you are stating an opinion instead of a fact, could you clarify that as well.

Rockie: Again, I am on neutral ground here but... just so I get this straight, you are saying that you like the Red team (politically) because their misuse of our tax dollars, scandals, and abuse or our trust are more appealing to you than the Blue teams misuse or our tax dollars, scandals and abuse of our trust? Call me crazy but I would like to see a party, any party that doesn't waste my money on scandal, bribes and the like. Deciding which party to vote for based on who had the more palatable waste of my money doesn't seem like a very good system to me no matter who is in charge of the country.

[frosti]

Now I am neither for nor against the F-35 purchase but, given the fact the the airplane has yet to face off with a foreign foe, I cannot imagine how you can make such statements as fact unless you have access to some serious classified information or you know of some combat missions flown that the rest of us do not know about. Now, in all seriousness, please enlighten us as to how you are so knowledgeable about the performance characteristics and combat capability of this aircraft, and using press clippings taken from the brochure don't count. If, however, you are stating an opinion instead of a fact, could you clarify that as well.

Everyone is an expert when it comes to the F35 based on what they read from the media. I must say reading some of the stories published in the Canadian press has been quite amusing. Canadian journalists seem impervious to the embarrassment of displaying their complete lack of knowledge of anything to do with aviation. In fact they seem rather proud of their ignorance, but then things military are not covered much in Canada so it is to be expected by folks whose usual beat is art gallery openings or restaurant reviews. One guy keeps referring to the plane as a "Bomb Truck" and another one has figured out the secret reason Canada really needs the stealthy F35 - so Canada can do First Strike missions against Chinese aircraft carriers when they attack Canada in 2033. A target rich amusement zone. The military and military personnel are collateral damage which seems to be insignificant to the press and the opposition.

[trampbike]

The F35 cannot dogfight

You seem to have access to highly secret information...

However, as far as us mere mortals can know, the F35, on a full internal payload (fuel + 2 AG bombs +2 A-A missiles), turns as well as a block 50 F-16 in clean configuration (no weapons attached to the pylons), and has a much greater acceleration.

Even without all the fancy systems, we can assume the F35 won't be such a lame dogfighter.
I'd be interested in reading your arguments.

[Moose47]

G'day trampbike

You have to remember, this is the individual who claimed "Canadian CF18 never really had any major impact or roll to play".

Well my friends in the fighter puke community (sorry Aux old buddy) flying CF-188 Hornets during the Gulf War (Op Friction) flew 2,700 combat patrols and 56 bombing sorities.

During Op Echo, Canadian pilots flew 678 combat sorties: 120 defensive counter-air escorts for N.A.T.O. strike packages and 558 bombing strikes

Canadian Hornet pilots also (including Aux) carried out 946 combat sorties against on pro-Gadhafi forces.

I hate to call you an 'Armchair General' Conestoga because I don't think you rank above 'Private'.

Cheers...Chris

[cdnpilot77]

Good Burn Moose.

At the end of the day, the F35 may very well be the best most suited fighter for Canada, but the more valid questions are, 1) Can we afford it? and 2) Why wasn't there any type of bid or competition, to prove to the taxpayers paying for these, that this is best best bang for our buck?

[YYZSaabGuy]

At the end of the day, the F35 may very well be the best most suited fighter for Canada, but the more valid questions are, 1) Can we afford it? and 2) Why wasn't there any type of bid or competition, to prove to the taxpayers paying for these, that this is best best bang for our buck?

And that's a nice summary of the whole issue, right there. Most of us (definitely including me) on this forum aren't anywhere near educated enough, or informed enough, to make any kind of judgement on the technical merits of the F35. On the other hand, you don't need to be an aeronautical engineer to know that the procurement process doesn't pass the smell test. Adding PWGSC into the mix isn't going to speed things up or necessarily result in a different decision, but taking sole control of the file away from the Minister and DND should at the very least shed a bit more light on things. The F35 may well be the best, or perhaps even the only viable, option. I'd just like someone other than the military to agree with that conclusion, hopefully without turning this into another Sea King replacement fiasco.

[AuxBatOn]

If you look at Mr Allan's past (the one that claims the JSF will be way overpriced, cries because the due process wasn't followed, etc, etc), it doesn't take too long to understand why he makes a mountain out of a mole hill for the JSF purchase....

[Dyda]

Would somebody please detail the proposed mission(s) for this aircraft? JUST ONCE ...

[YYZSaabGuy]

If you look at Mr Allan's past (the one that claims the JSF will be way overpriced, cries because the due process wasn't followed, etc, etc), it doesn't take too long to understand why he makes a mountain out of a mole hill for the JSF purchase....

That's a $25 - $35 Billion+ molehill you're talking about . I don't think expecting people to follow "due process" is unreasonable. Do you?

[ragbagflyer]

A thoughtful article that asks some pertinent questions.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... -f-35.html

Well my friends in the fighter puke community (sorry Aux old buddy) flying CF-188 Hornets during the Gulf War (Op Friction) flew 2,700 combat patrols and 56 bombing sorities.

During Op Echo, Canadian pilots flew 678 combat sorties: 120 defensive counter-air escorts for N.A.T.O. strike packages and 558 bombing strikes

Canadian Hornet pilots also (including Aux) carried out 946 combat sorties against on pro-Gadhafi forces.

While those numbers sound impressive, when put into context in the bigger picture they seem less significant. Quoting from the above article,

...throughout the entire jet age, Canada has acquired more than 1,100 fighters, out of which only 48 have seen active service in our five hot conflicts.

The numbers are worth repeating: Korean War (1950-53), none. Gulf War (1991), 24. Kosovo (1999), 18. Afghanistan (2001-2011), none. Libya (2011), six.

The reality is that in over six decades the Canadian government, whatever its stripe, has been leery of sending planes into active combat zones

For the most part, it has only deployed them in modest numbers in situations where air superiority is already guaranteed by large numbers of U.S., British and, sometimes, French forces.

....When the influential Foreign Policy magazine recently polled leading U.S. military and security experts to name which big defence system to scrap in a belt-tightened future, the F-35 was the hands-down favourite for the chop.

"We have had only one fighter shot down by an enemy fighter jet in 40 years," argued John Arquilla, a senior defence analyst at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School. "We simply don't need to spend over a trillion dollars on a new fighter at this point."

What I find interesting is that 30 years seems to be the number that is floated around as the lifespan of this project. With the increasing pace of technology the need for manned fighter jets will have long since passed by the 30 year point, if not by year 10. We're not too far from the point where having a pilot onboard does nothing more than hold back the aircraft; perhaps we are there already. Also, how much of the price of a fighter jet goes into sustaining the life of the pilot inside? My guess it a lot.

[Tom H]

History is an amazing thing....

The author should likely read some to get context with his comments.

The numbers are worth repeating: Korean War (1950-53), none. Gulf War (1991), 24. Kosovo (1999), 18. Afghanistan (2001-2011), none. Libya (2011), six.

The author skips the whole "Cold War" commitment, you remember that whole deal?

The RCAF had literally hundreds of aircraft in place through Europe and while a shot (fortunately) was never fired every day was treated as a "combat day". Right or Wrong in today's revisionist world that is what the personnel on the ground saw it as! The rest of us also lived in that world and the threat was perceived as real...now we will never know how real as the spins and twists of the world today work to cloud the past and move forward.

But is was very real and is very real for the families of over 100 RCAF personnel lost in the service of their country during the "Cold War".

Did the Canadian presence have an effect? History seems to show it did.

And what about all those serving since the cooling, then end of the Cold War? All the patrols and duties performed?

Seems like the author is saying we don't need to worry about our security, but I'll bet he has a home security system.

My opinion

[trampbike]

2) Why wasn't there any type of bid or competition, to prove to the taxpayers paying for these, that this is best best bang for our buck?

Here is my take on that. Worth what you paid for it.


In the end of 2006, Canada signed the MoU for the third phase of the program. There are many sound reasons for this participation (industrial benefits, technology transfer, lower pirces in the event of a JSF purchase etc). During the last decade, DND came up with requirements for the next Canadian fighter that pretty much eliminated any contenders other than the F35. The SH and the Typhoon might have fulfilled the requirements, however it was evaluated that these 2 options were not as cost effective as the F35. On the short term the SH or Typhoon might be viable options, but since DND planned on flying this next fighter for a couple of decades (maybe until UCAVs become a viable option), the F35 seemed to be the best option.

Now, I hope that this so far has not convinced you that a competition was not necessary! Here is what might:
If a fair competition could have been held, you bet that the government would have held one. They would have it much easier with the opposition, the medias and the public opinion. However, Canada's involvement in the MoU prevents a fair competition the be held. The procurement process through the MoU is very different from what is normally done. Boeing or EADS would be at a huge disadvantage competing against the JSF. They would not be competing against LM as what would normally happen during a competition. They would be competing against the JSF program and the MoU.
So in order to hold a fair competition, Canada has to leave the MoU. In this case, the competition could be held. However, Canada is almost certain that nothing can beat the F35 as far as price, performance and sustainability go (hey, they wrote the SOR, they know what they want...). So, if the F35 wins and Canada wishes to buy it, he'll then have to do it through US Foreign Military Sales instead of the MoU. The procurement would then be much more expensive and with WAY less benefits for Canadian industries.

[Moose47]

"...throughout the entire jet age, Canada has acquired more than 1,100 fighters"

The author really needs to do some research.

Gloster Meteor F. Mk. III and F. Mk. IV - 2
de Havilland Vampire Mk. III - 86
McDonnel F2H-3 Banshee - 39
Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck (all Mk.'s) - 692
North American F-86A Sabre - 1
Canadair Sabre (all Mk.'s) - 1,184
Canadair (Northrop) CF-5A/D - 118
McDonnell CF-101 Voodoo - 132 (includes 'Peace Wings' swapped aircraft)
Lockheed F-104A - 1
Canadair CF-104 (Single and Dual) - 239
Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow - 5 (yes they were on strength with the R.C.A.F. when destroyed at Malton)
McDonnel Douglas CF-188 Hornet - 137

So Mr. author, you do the math and see what you come up with!

Cheers...Chris

[C-GGGQ]

Well.... it's certainly MORE than 1100

[Tom H]

Trampbike

Appreciate you taking a logical approach to the argument (debate?)

A little side note...I am one of those that thinks once sorted the F-35 will be a great aircraft for it's design mission. But still think that it's not the mission that Canada needs.

That said lets look at your comments:

In the end of 2006, Canada signed the MoU for the third phase of the program. There are many sound reasons for this participation (industrial benefits, technology transfer, lower pirces in the event of a JSF purchase etc).

Agree

During the last decade, DND came up with requirements for the next Canadian fighter that pretty much eliminated any contenders other than the F35.

So does that mean that it's the best for "our needs" or the spec was written so only the F-35 could meet it? Interesting question...wonder what the real answer is?

The SH and the Typhoon might have fulfilled the requirements, however it was evaluated that these 2 options were not as cost effective as the F35.

Were those competitors approached re: Their industrial benefit packages? Canadian content options? Equivalency contract options?

Not that has been published...so how do we know what the real price benefit option would have been?
We don't.

On the short term the SH or Typhoon might be viable options, but since DND planned on flying this next fighter for a couple of decades (maybe until UCAVs become a viable option), the F35 seemed to be the best option.

But if we don't know the answer to the quote above this one how can we make that leap in decisions?

However, Canada's involvement in the MoU prevents a fair competition the be held.

Why? The only disadvantage is to the current program, all the cards are on the table and competitors know the economic package that needs beaten, can their aircraft meet the performance targets?

Now if their economic package was as good/better and their aircraft as good/better we would have a choice and could play the hand to our benefit.

Boeing or EADS would be at a huge disadvantage competing against the JSF. They would not be competing against LM as what would normally happen during a competition. They would be competing against the JSF program and the MoU.

Well considering the Boeing group WAS part of the JSF program and the X-32, while not winning the bid, did fairly well and has likely been polished since it seems this is a horse race that would have been worth watching. Throw in the Euro competitors and it would have been a "must watch".

Without leaving the MoU.

The procurement would then be much more expensive and with WAY less benefits for Canadian industries.

But we don't know that because it was never done so the comment is frankly irrelevant.

Been fun chatting

My highly opinionated 2 bits

[frosti]

This procurement thing should go to an open competition. Only on one condition, the $1billion cost of walking away from the F35 and cost of competition go to the Liberals and NDP parties. They want it, they pay for it.

[iflyforpie]

No, the cost should go to the Cons for screwing up the procurement process. Do you buy a house without a home inspection just because it is cheaper and faster? Same goes with procurement that has the potential to cost hundreds of billions of dollars if not done correctly.

If the Cyclone's procurement woes are any indication, the F-35 has trouble ahead....

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Can ... ver-05223/