Topic: F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Sharpey]

OK, Military spending (or should I say not spending) is always a topic of discussion. On the DND sight today, they talk about Canada‘s planned contribution of $240 million for the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) project.
 Ok, have at ‘er, is this really important at this point in time?

[Enfield]

The CF-18‘s won‘t last much longer, and we need something to replace it. The JSF concept is a good one - a multi-role fighter aircraft shared by multiple nations. That means we can do more types of misions with the same plane, and increased inter-operability with our allies.

However, dont get to excited - Canada‘s contribution is a drop in the bucket of a huge, multi-billion development project. Good to get in on the ground floor though.

[Chris Pook]

I didn't see a thread on this subject.  If one exists feel free to move this post.

Canada may or may not see any of these beasts in Canadian service, but as has been noted elsewhere we already have a financial stake in them.  If we did see them it wouldn't be until out past the 2020-2025 window.

There has been considerable concern expressed, especially by the Royal Navy and the US Marines, that the JSF was too heavy to be able to accomodate the STOVL (Short Take Off - Vertical Landing) version they require to work with their vessels.  The USMC can work-around because of the US Navy's Carriers, but for the RN this is the only game in town for their proposed Carriers.

This article is Lockheed's announcement that the problem is fixed.  They apparently lopped 2700kg off the air-frame weight.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Although this is really dreaming in technicolour as a Canadian the availability of these aircraft as possible replacements for the CF-18 in the long-term does put the prospect of fixed wing air for expeditionary forces in the hands of the CF.

Interestingly, after Afghanistan - where the US couldn't get Tactical Air Support in country (fighters had to be based on ships or in other countries necessitating Schmidts long flight and drug-enhanced state) - both the US Air Force and the US Navy are seriously looking at the STOVL version for their own use as well as the conventional version.

I gather that both services had reservations about the Harrier because of the complexity of the aircraft and its controls and the fact that it didn't blend well with any of their other aircraft for conversion training.  The JSF seems to be trying to be more user friendly and requiring fewer special skills.

One other feature of the Harrier/JSF(STOVL) that apparently sells is that they can fly more often than conventional air.  I remember reading somewhere that this was proved during the Falklands.  That it was possible to land the Harriers in fogs and seas that would have kept conventional craft on the deck.  You can't launch if you can't land apparently.


Cheers

[Sam69]

Interesting post Kirk - thanks.

As a matter of interest, Canada's participation in the JSF as a level 3 participant (don't quote me on that nomenclature) is primarily to ensure that Canadian firms have access to JSF contracts and secondarily to give us some insight into the program.

The CF does currently have an expeditionary fighter capability with the CF-188, as was demonstrated in both Gulf War '91 and Kosovo. I do take your point that the STOVL version of the JSF would be able to operate from more austere fields than the Hornet but you must also realize that the aircraft will still require significant infrastructure and support (bombs, beans, and gas) to be operationally effective irrespective of their operating location.

The CF's Hornets are currently in the midst of a significant upgrade program that will see 80 jets receive a substantial upgrade to their combat capability. Having said that, I believe the aircraft are still scheduled to last no longer than 2017 and I would expect that you will see a project stood up no later than 2007 to start the process of replacing them. As to what will replace the Hornets, that's anybody's guess but we could expect that the list of candidates will be reasonably short and would likely include the F-35 (in one of its variants) and almost certainly not the F-22 (too expensive).

Sam

[Bert]

The JSF have many good features but I'm sure it is expensive as heck.  Since Canada has utilized
fighters in a ground stike, air superiority, and interception roles, would it be in Canada's
best interest to maintain Hornet squadrons as well as whatever number of JSF squadrons
the country could support? 

The Hornet contracts were purchased with long term service, maintenance, and simplicity in mind. 
The aircraft has worked adequately as a multi-role fighter.  In time, Canada will have to replace
the CF-18s.  I surmise that the JSFs could not be purchased to directly replace the CF-18s unit
by unit.  Instead of using the CF-18 multi-role scenario in the future, would Canada begin
acquiring role specific fighters or choosing another more advanced but economical multi-role?

Any acquisition scenarios by 2017-2020?

[condor888000]

Starts at 35 mill. Not bad for a fighter as capable as it is supposed to be.

[canuck101]

I think when Canada gets around to replacing the CF-18, the JSF would be all ready in service in other countries. I don't think the gov is interested in having two fighters.  we may not be the first to buy but i think we will purchase them maybe not as many as we did with the CF-18.

[CloudCover]

Starts at 35 mill. Not bad for a fighter as capable as it is supposed to be.

Seems a little low. Engine, wings and wiring must be optional.

[condor888000]

Seems a little low. Engine, wings and wiring must be optional.

I was slightly off. Popular Mechanics, May 2002, "The air force will fly the F-35A. The least complicated, of the designs, they will cost more than $ 30 million each." Obviously a bit old, but should still be fairly close.

[Chris Pook]

Reinforcing Sam69s comments about having an Air Force expeditionary capability already,  these comments came from Bill Graham:

The CF does currently have an expeditionary fighter capability with the CF-188

Upgraded CF-18 fighter jets have no where to fly
Air-to-air refuelling
 
Chris Wattie
National Post


September 23, 2004


 
The Canadian air force now has the ability to send its CF-18 fighters almost anywhere in the world, with their own precision bombs and their own air-to-air refuelling tanker, but Bill Graham, the Defence Minister, said yesterday he has no plans to use the air force's new-found mobility.

The air force will take delivery of its first converted CC-150 Polaris transport plane in two weeks, an air force spokesman said, giving the Canadian Forces the ability to send a self-sufficient squadron of fighters abroad for the first time in seven years.

"Within a period of weeks, you could have the entire force on the ground and flying combat missions at the other end," said Brigadier-General Dwight Davies, the chief of operations for 1st Canadian Air Division.

"There's no geographic impediment to us deploying these aircraft anywhere in the world ... we can get, in a very short period of time, to anywhere on the globe."

The Canadian Forces is spending $80-million to turn two of its five Polaris jets into air-to-air refuelling tankers, essentially flying gas stations for CF-18 fighters.

The newly fitted tankers can also carry passengers, allowing the air force for the first time in decades to send a Canadian expeditionary squadron abroad, complete with jets, pilots and ground crew.

Crews must still be trained in refuelling techniques and some airborne electronics must still be added to the Polaris tankers, but they are expected to be operational by early next year. A second tanker aircraft will be ready by next April.

But despite calls from NATO and embattled Afghan government, the Liberal Defence Minister said yesterday he will not send the fighters to fly air cover for Canadian and allied ground troops in Afghanistan.

"I can't tell you if we're sending them anywhere at the moment, certainly not Afghanistan for now. But we want to make sure they have the resources to maintain that capability."

Mr. Graham, speaking with the National Post after he addressed a gathering at the Royal Canadian Military Institute, said the air force will wait until they are asked to deploy the CF-18s before they commit them overseas.

"Let's make sure they get to the mission that's appropriate. Afghanistan is not that mission at the moment."

The Defence Minister said in his speech at the institute that one of his priorities will be giving the Canadian Forces much-needed rest after back-to-back overseas missions in Afghanistan and the Arabian Sea.

"The high operational tempo ... has had an impact on our men and women in uniform and their families. As I've said before, they need and deserve a break."

"This is why we are now moving to reduce our operational commitments and begin a period of regeneration."

The United States sent an "informal request for forces" to the Canadian military in 2002, asking if they could deploy a squadron of CF-18s to southwest Asia to provide close air support for U.S. and coalition ground forces hunting down Taliban and al-Qaeda holdouts in Afghanistan.

According to Defence Department memos obtained by the National Post, Canadian staff officers determined that the proposed mission was possible. But Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison, the deputy chief of defence staff, turned down the U.S. request because of concerns that it would appear to be indirectly supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Brig.-Gen. Davies said that the air force is now in a better position to provide a "six pack" of Canadian fighters for an overseas mission, thanks to the new refuelling tankers and a multi-billion-dollar modernization program for the CF-18.

"Expeditionary capability, which is the ability to deploy abroad, is a significant area of focus and importance to the air force," he said. "[And] we can deploy fairly significant levels of combat power even as we speak."

Two of Canada's four fighter squadrons have been converted to the upgraded versions of the fighter jets, equipped with modern electronics, radios and targeting computers to allow them to use up-to-date precision bombs and missiles.

"It has been a great success story," Brig.-Gen. Davies said of the modernization program.

"The resulting modernized aircraft, with the weapons suite that goes with it, is a virtually state-of-the-art fighter that is world-class. It's a remarkable piece of equipment."

As well, the air force has acquired stockpiles of precision-guided weapons in recent months as well as additional electronic "sensor pods" carried under the fighters' wings to control laser- or GPS-guided bombs.

Six of the new fighters, accompanied by one of the CC-150 tankers, can be airborne and on their way to an international hot spot within days, Brig.-Gen. Davies said. "One of the principal things that the CF-18 brings to the table is not only does it provide a significant amount of combat power, even relatively small numbers, but it is deployable rapidly," he said.

"It will provide a capability to the Canadian government that -- should they choose to use it -- would have utility in a vast number of scenarios anywhere in the world."

With the new air-to-air refuelling planes, Brig.-Gen. Davies, said the air force can now go where it wants without relying on American or rented tankers. As well, he said, Canada can now support its fighters on the ground, even building its own air base if necessary.

"We have the ability to put in place a fully instrumented airport, where we would have control towers, [navigational] aids, communications and air traffic controllers and so on," he said.

"It's not an endless capability and to sustain such an airfield [abroad] would be a challenge, but no more than we are challenged in many other areas of the Canadian Forces to support a deployed operation."

Unfortunately Bill can't seem to find anything for them to do just now.....

[Chris Pook]

And this is despite all the new capabilities out there....

Raytheon Completes JSOW Operational Test and Evaluation Firings 
 
 
(Source: Raytheon Company; issued Sept. 22, 2004)
 
 
 TUCSON, Ariz. --- Raytheon Company's unitary/penetration variant of Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW-C) has completed operational test (OT) firings with nine of 10 shots successful against a wide range of targets. JSOW-C was developed by a team that includes the U.S. Navy, Raytheon, BAE Systems and Thales Missile Electronics. 
 
â Å“JSOW-C will be a significant addition to the warfighting capability of the Navy and Marine Corps,â ? said Capt. David Dunaway, the Navy's JSOW program manager. â Å“We look forward to the fleet introduction of JSOW unitary.â ? 
 
JSOW-C incorporates a Raytheon-developed uncooled, long-wave infrared seeker with automatic target acquisition algorithms, providing the Navy a launch-and-leave weapon with a long-range standoff precision strike capability. JSOW-C will be the first U.S. weapon to incorporate the two stage broach blast fragmentation/penetration warhead, developed by the United Kingdom's BAE Systems. Thales provides the fuze. JSOW-C has a unique capability for a glide weapon in its ability to attack a hardened target in a near-horizontal mode. 
 
Operational testing took place primarily at the Naval Air Systems Command's Pacific Land Range at China Lake, Calif. OT tests the entire weapon system under fleet Navy and Marine Corps operational conditions. Delivery began this month of the first production missiles ordered under a previous low-rate initial production contract in July 2003. 
 
JSOW-C was tested against a wide array of targets ranging from radar sites to caves and hardened bunkers including targets where concealment and other methods were used to attempt to deceive the missile. â Å“We are very pleased with the success of the JSOW OT firings,â ? said Ron Shields, Raytheon's JSOW program director. â Å“The performance of our weapon against the concealment and deception exceeded expectations.â ? 
 
JSOW is a joint Navy and Air Force program. It is a family of low-cost, highly survivable, air-to-ground weapons employing an integrated Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation system that guides the weapon to the target. More than 400 JSOW-As have been used in combat operations to date. 
 
The JSOW family uses a common and modular weapon body capable of carrying a variety of payloads and handling multiple munitions. Its long standoff range of up to 70 nautical miles allows delivery from well outside the lethal range of most enemy air defenses. The AGM-154A (also called JSOW-A) variant dispenses BLU-97 combined-effect bomblets for use against soft and area targets. It is produced for use on the F/A-18, F-16, F-15E, B-1, B-2 and B-52 aircraft. The AGM-154C (JSOW-C) is currently being produced for Navy F/A-18s and has been selected by Poland for use on its F-16s. The Navy/Raytheon team is developing a Block II configuration of the JSOW weapon system that provides significant cost reductions to all JSOW versions. The first Block II configuration weapons will be delivered in 2007. Additionally, other JSOW improvements are under way to add anti-ship capability, reduce unexploded ordnance concerns, hit moving targets, provide bomb hit indication, provide network capability and further reduce costs. 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

[IT_Dude_Joeschmo]

I would REALLY like to see a new fighter aircraft for Canada in the not so far future. We would never get to have something as advanced as the F-22... That would be AMAZING but no, way to expensive. That sucker is so expensive even the American's themselves almost canned the project, until they realized the potential of that aircraft. Anyway, the F-35 would be great for Canada. Unfortunatly by the time we buy them, they'll be shortly on thier way to the graveyard. I mean, realistically, by 2020, most modern nations will be just releasing or very close to releasing thier next generation of military aircraft.

The US said the F-35 will be thier last work on "Manned" fighter aircraft, YEAH, we'll see... We also thought that men wouldn't be flying fighter jets back in the 1950's-1960's and thanks to our government and US influence we lost the Avro Arrow. YEAH! Wicked idea they had back then!

Anyway, I can't wait until we get a new jet, although I do love the hornet, she's had her time in the sky!!!!

PS> Howcome we aren't getting our aircraft modernized to say, the F/A-18E+F Superhornets? I know thier a wee-bit expensive! About 50 million, would that be it? I seen one at the CNE (Canadian Nation Exhibition) Airshow in Toronto this summer, damn plane really tore the sky apart! But so did our Canadian CF-18 Hornet, but why not even upgrade to that level?

 

[DJL]

I would REALLY like to see a new fighter aircraft for Canada in the not so far future. We would never get to have something as advanced as the F-22... That would be AMAZING but no, way to expensive. That sucker is so expensive even the American's themselves almost canned the project, until they realized the potential of that aircraft. Anyway, the F-35 would be great for Canada. Unfortunatly by the time we buy them, they'll be shortly on thier way to the graveyard. I mean, realistically, by 2020, most modern nations will be just releasing or very close to releasing thier next generation of military aircraft.

If we were to get the JSF in the 2020 timeframe, the aircraft will only have been in service with the United States for 6-8 years (depending on version), added to the fact that likely the Americans and British would get their orders first, so 2020 wouldn't appear to be a unreasonable ISD.

PS> Howcome we aren't getting our aircraft modernized to say, the F/A-18E+F Superhornets? I know thier a wee-bit expensive! About 50 million, would that be it? I seen one at the CNE (Canadian Nation Exhibition) Airshow in Toronto this summer, damn plane really tore the sky apart! But so did our Canadian CF-18 Hornet, but why not even upgrade to that level?

The Hornet and Superhornet are almost completely different aircraft. (Superhornet is larger) IIRC, we are supposed to be upgrading our Hornets to the same level as the current USN and USMC hornets. (C/D models?)

[IT_Dude_Joeschmo]

If we were to get the JSF in the 2020 timeframe, the aircraft will only have been in service with the United States for 6-8 years (depending on version), added to the fact that likely the Americans and British would get their orders first, so 2020 wouldn't appear to be a unreasonable ISD.

Well that is good to hear... At least we'll be modern/top of the line still then.

The Hornet and Superhornet are almost completely different aircraft. (Superhornet is larger) IIRC, we are supposed to be upgrading our Hornets to the same level as the current USN and USMC hornets. (C/D models?)

Yes I do understand they are very different. The E/F (Superhornets) have longer wings+fuselage, 2-3 more hardpoints and much more powerfull engines... And obviously upgraded avionics+flight control systems etc etc etc...

BUT... If you look closely at pics of the E/F's.. You'll notice they have the same air intakes as the F-22... The sort of squared away versions!!! They could use MANY off the shelf so to speak components you would think to produce the new versions... Like Europe's new EF2000, it uses the cockpit/front fuselage of off the shelf F-16's and also thier (although modified) fly by wire systems!

I dunno, I suppose I'm just feeling green over the fact that Canada has had the same fighter aircraft since I've been alive...
 
Joe

[Code5]

If its any consolation we didn't get the last CF-18 till 1988 so technically we've had more than one fighter type  since you came along.  And the last CF-5 was retired in'95 (assuming of course the DND website is right). 



 

[Bograt]

Does anyone know if the Hornet upgrades will enable AMRAAM capability? Do the Aussies have AMRAAMS on their upgraded 18s?

[Code5]

according to CASR we're getting aim-120s for the CF-18s, and i seem to recall a short news blurb a while back about the US okaying the sale of AMRAAMS to Canada. http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-ng3-5.htm
I'll do some digging

[air533]

.

[Inch]

Doesn't the JSF have only one engine?
I don't think the Canadian government will buy a single-engine interceptor.
I thought that was part of the reason Canada chose the F-18 over the F-16 25 years ago.

air533

Jet engines are a lot more reliable than they were 25 years ago. If the engine can meet certain reliability requirements, I don't see why we wouldn't pick it.

[air533]

.

[ArmyAviator]

This in from the Washington Post.   Noticed the revised cost estimate in $US.   IMHO when the government and the CF start looking at a replacement for the CF-18 we will be looking at the newer marks of the Eurofighter, Rafale, etc from Europe.   You can talk all you want about how much better the JSF is, or will be, but getting the best you can within your budget will be the order of the day.

Washington Post
March 16, 2005
Pg. 6
GAO Questions Cost Of Joint Strike Fighter
By Renae Merle, Washington Post Staff Writer
Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is at a crossroads, the Government Accountability Office said yesterday, calling the original plan for the project "unexecutable."
The fighter was designed to be a low-cost replacement to the Air Force's F-16, with different versions being developed for the Navy, Marine Corps and British forces. But it is now expected to cost $244.8 billion to produce a planned 2,400 planes. Development will cost $44.8 billion, including a $10 billion increase identified last year, the report said.
Nearly half the increase, $4.9 billion, is needed to lower the aircraft's weight because being heavier hurt "the aircraft's key performance capabilities," the report said. The Pentagon said more money was also needed to add anti-tampering technology to keep sensitive technology safe.
Spending on the program will eventually increase to $1 billion a month from $100 million a month as the Defense Department invests in tools, facilities and workers, according to the report. The final design of the fighter should be set before the Pentagon makes those investments so that costly changes will not have to be made later, a GAO official said.
"While delays are never welcomed, time taken by DOD now to gain more knowledge and reduce risk before increasing its investment may well save time and money later," the report said. "Now is the time to get the strategy right." It also said the strike fighter will have to compete with other expensive programs for "scarce funding."
The Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter office said it has already addressed the concerns raised in the report, the first of five annual reviews of the program ordered by Congress. The latest plan for the program, which includes delaying the first aircraft delivery one year until 2009, "reflects an acquisition strategy with the most appropriate balance of technical, cost, and schedule risks to meet program objectives," the office said in a written statement.
"Much progress has been made since last year. The F-35 has resolved its weight problem," said Lockheed spokesman Jeff Adams.

[CloudCover]

LOL ...can you imagine spending $1 billion each and every month to acquire a single aircraft type?  That, my friends, is not "sitting on the runway" "small town cheap."

[air533]

.

[jmacleod]

The contribution by Canada in the Lockheed-Martin F35 JSF is over $300m. There are no industrial
regional benefits associated with the aircraft but IC reports $400m in direct participation contracts
to Canadian firms. American Aerospace Assn reports this week that the estimated $10 billion overrun
on the F35 project are unacceptable to the US Government, and the aircraft is not working out as
well as anticipated -same problem with the F22. The Eurofighter is an alternative, and a good one.
The CF-18 with upgrades is scheduled to be in operational use for another decade or more, but a
lot will depend on the life expectancy of the airframe. AF Techs who read this will know what I
mean, since CF do not want to speculate. The choice of the F-18A Hornet had nothing to do with
multi engines - the first choice by DND CF (Gen Paul Manson &   Company) was the GD F-16 - regional
benefits and technology transfer (equalizing job creation) made the difference, plus the politics of
the period. Regards, MacLeod

[IT_Dude_Joeschmo]

The Eurofighter might also be cheaper because it uses some "off-the-shelf" components like the F-16's front fuselage/cockpit section fitted with forward wing canards and same fly-by-wire systems. So maybe it having 2 engines making it more expensive will equal out because the off the shelf aspect?

I thought the F-22 was a fantastic aircraft no??? I thought the only reason they had not purchased so many/cut the amount they purchased is because individual unit cost and also the overrun of the budget in general?

Here's the link to Boeing's website for features on the F-22A:

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/f22features.html

Joe