F-35 is dead

[Colonel Sanders]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -purchase/

The F-35 jet fighter purchase, the most persistent thorn in the Harper government’s side and the subject of a devastating auditor-general’s report last spring, is dead.

Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30-billion, the operations committee of cabinet decided Tuesday evening to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.

Boeing’s Super Hornet, Dassault’s Rafale, Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon , and the F-35, are seen as the leading contenders in any new contest to replace the F-18 fleet.

[JungianJugular]

At least Canadian pilots got to sit in an F-35 simulator.

[bizjets101]

More info Guess 'ours' are being delivered to Tom Cruise for his Top Gun Two movie

[Rockie]

This government sets new lows for incompetence, deceitfulness, secrecy and sheer stupidity every single day.

[Kosiw]

This is good news and will save the taxpayers at least some money, as there are cheaper alternatives out there that will suffice till the next generation of unmanned fighters comes down the pipe in the next few decades....

[Old fella]

WTF....... what can anybody say with the current projections to be in excess of $30B+ and higher - some are saying $40B. Even the current"law and order/everything military" government is stepping back from it, they have no choice.

[Masters Off]

Ah, well, I'm a hardcore Super-Hornet E/F variant fan anyways. Something about the single engine and sharing the technology with a whole bunch of nations doesn't make me as warm and fuzzy.

I could be wrong, but wasn't it a bunch of MP's that sat in the simualator? (Like they know what the hell anything does in that cockpit...)

[xsbank]

I'm glad they finally chose the correct decision - we just can't afford gold-plated jets. If we can find something that's 90% as good as the F35 for 1/2 the price or less, we will be well-served. Besides, didn't our guys win all sorts of combat competitions with our beat-up, antique Hornets? Isn't some of the success of a fighter got to do with the pilot? If that's no longer true and I'm using old-fashioned thinking, we should buy drones.

I wonder what the penalty for this fiasco will be? Can anyone say EH-101?

[frosti]

I wonder what the penalty for this fiasco will be?

An ineffective, poorly funded and public supported fighter jet force in Canada for the next 30 years. Don't tell any one, but the costs of operating a fleet of Super Hornets on our own when the Navy retires them in 15 years will be astronomical. But hey, at least we may or may not save a few million per jet in the short term purchase, right?

[alctel]

I remember them accusing anyone who criticized this deal as being 'anti-Canadian'

They should have cancelled this 2 years ago.

[frosti]

NOOOOPE.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... ml?cmp=rss

F-35 deal not cancelled, Tories insist

The Harper government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets, but the government now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered.

Carry on as usual....

[Siddley Hawker]

I don't know whether the F-35 is/isn't the correct choice, I'm no expert. What I do know is, there's a shit load of difference between losing an engine and losing the engine. If the talking heads can be believed, there have been 235 engine failures with the F-18 since they came on stream back in the age of Aquarius. 235 engine failures with the F-35 equals 235 airframe losses. Right now on CTV news there's some fucking dork with a bow tie the size of a dinner plate explaning that the new $40B price tag does not include airframe upgrades or airframe losses. How come no one asks the most obvious question "How does all that money compare to the cost to date of the airplane that is being replaced?" That is the question I'd ask and he'd better bloody well have an answer. Maybe $40B is a bargain, let's have some figures so the people who're paying for the fucking things have something to compare the price tag with.

[Beefitarian]

You probably would not lose all 235.

[frosti]

there have been 235 engine failures with the F-18 since they came on stream back in the age of Aquarius

Engines today are not the same as they were in the 70's/80's.

From f35.ca

"Here are some comments regarding the ‘one engine versus two’ topic:

-Statistics now show there is no safety advantage to having two engines versus one. Two generations ago, there was a safety advantage to twin-engine fighters – but over the years that gap continued to narrow, and now has closed completely.
-U.S. government Maintenance Reporting System statistics show that the F-16 (single engine) has a slightly better safety record than the F/A-18 (twin engine).
-With reliability and durability requirements at a level never before required of a fighter aircraft, the F-35 is forecast to be significantly safer than the single-engine and twin-engine aircraft it is designed to replace, including F-16 and F/A-18.
-F-35 possesses the most powerful fighter engine in history; its one engine produces more thrust than most twin-engine fighters.
-Two engines doubles the cost of propulsion maintenance.
-The most effective application of two engines is two single-engine airplanes."

There won't be a shortage of pilots in Canada willing to fly the F35 over the Arctic so this topic is moot. Also, two engines didn't help that F/A-18 that crashed into the apartment buildings in Virgina or the one that crashed over a residential area in California just a few years ago. Not saying the F135 is indestructible, but one vs. two engines for reliability is irrelevant.

[Cat Driver]

So tell me frosti if you were flying in the high arctic and you had an engine failure you would choose to have the engine failure in a single engine airplane rather than in a twin engine airplane?

[frosti]

So tell me frosti if you were flying in the high arctic and you had an engine failure you would choose to have the engine failure in a single engine airplane rather than in a twin engine airplane?

I'd like to know the statistics of that scenario occurring.

If I was a fighter pilot having an engine failure would be the last thing on my mind considering all the dangers that comes with that profession. I would not hesitate to fly in/a F-35.

[privateer]

I don't think the F35 should be our only fighter. The F-15E or Super Hornet would be a great asset too. However even having 2 engines doesn't help save your bacon sometimes.

[teacher]

The single engine debate is long dead and proven to be a dud Cat. Whether it's single engine turbine IFR or over the arctic it has be proven time time time time and time again that you are no longer safer with 2 than 1. YOU can always come up with a scenario that would seemingly prove your point, oh I don't know like, inverted in the arctic just after take off in a snow storm with severe ice during a lunar eclipse would you be safer with..........

Like some informed folks have asked, well, fine. If we don't get the F-35 than what? What would be the costs of another fighter like the Super Hornet? What would the total life costs of that program be? More fuel burn with 2 engines? Supported parts as this aircraft will be retired in the US over a decade earlier than the f-35. Lets compare? Thing is we can't cause nobody has the required info.

[DonutHole]

Statistically the titanic was unsinkable

[shimmydampner]

Wait, so if I have an engine failure in a single, I'm just as safe as if I have an engine failure in a twin? Well I'll be...learn something new every day.

[teacher]

..........and statistically it's still no safer to fly in a twin than a single and yes shimmy, those are the stats.

[Tubthumper]

Private, no one flies the (useless) high-alpha-pass, spending time behind the power curve in the Arctic, or anywhere other than an airshow. If he hadn't been in this config when the right side quit, this aircraft would have landed.

[shimmydampner]

..........and statistically it's still no safer to fly in a twin than a single and yes shimmy, those are the stats.

Too bad stats aren't facts.

[trampbike]

CS, I'm quite puzzled at how you often are extremely critical of journalism (when what they write goes against what you strongly believe in), but you eat it all up quite easily when it comes to the F35.

..........and statistically it's still no safer to fly in a twin than a single and yes shimmy, those are the stats.

Too bad stats aren't facts.

Yes they are. They are a thorough collection of facts. They are essential to any scientifc endeavour, and when well utilized, they are an awesome tool for better decision making, especially for public policies.

If you want to make a good decision about something where a risk is involved, you need to make a proper statistical analysis instead of thinking about the "well if the [insert any bad event] happens, maybe I should have taken a different decision".
This is true for everything.

Should you invest your money in stocks, bonds or should you diversify? How so?
Should you take treatment A or B?
Is it better for the security of citizens to invest in schools or in the police department? In which proportions should the money be invested?
Is it worth it to implement a mandatory screenings for disease C knowing the number proportion of false positive is X%?
Is the "hot hand" phenomenon in basketball (and many other variations in other sports) a real thing or just the fruit of our imagination that wants to see causality a posteriori everywhere?
What kind of starting hands in Texas Hold'Em poker should you play from the small blind when it's folded to you and you have a low Stack to BB ratio?
Is it more dangerous to drive under the influence of marijuana or alcool? How much alcool intake makes it as dangerous as Y grams of pot?
Is it safer to fly in a twin or single engined jet fighter? What are the factors in play?
Is having a gun in my house safer for my family than not having one?
Is a dollar spent by the government more efficient that a dollar spent by a private firm? Which benefits the population the most?
Should I be more worried about my kids beeing abducted or ran over by a car?

In all these cases, an intuitive answer might come easily to mind, but the past decades of reasearch in cognitive psychology showed that very often your intuition is going to be wrong, even when you are highly confident you are right.

Statistically the titanic was unsinkable

Then you simply don't understand what statistics are...
Because of its construction, the Titanic might have had a lower probability of sinking than most ships of the time. Statistics, however, now show that this probability was not 0.

This government sets new lows for incompetence, deceitfulness, secrecy and sheer stupidity every single day.

I agree with you, but the stupidity of this government about the F35 project had everything to do with how they try to sell it to the population and how they managed the project. The decision of buying the F35 is one of the rare thing that this government got right since 2006...

[kamikaze]

I'm no sure that the F-35 is necessarily completely dead yet, but it sure is going under a microscope.

Harper and his morons are discovering that those burdensome competitive rules regarding public procurement are there for a reason, and actually do give you some benefits.

There's a reason we don't just buy whatever public money spenders ask for with eyes closed.

Now the politicians are looking into this, and learning the hard lessons. I hope they pay a political price for this, it was wholy avoidable, and questionable.

I just expect we'll end up with either a much better reason for buyingt he F-35's with some more realistic costs, or more likely, we'll have to learn that sometimes we can't afford he cadillac, even for our military, and sometimes the realities of public finances get in the way. Even if you thinkt he F-35 is the best choice, maybe we just can afford it. so what's second best?