F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Kirkhill]

Once some real UCAVs are available in numbers that actually allow them to be used tactically I would expect them to be flying as "wing men" to a couple of manned fighters.....

Somebody needs to be "on the ground" to visually confirm the targeting.  The UCAVs would likely do a great job of actually carrying the strike weapons, flying "wild weasel" screens, or just supplying a bunch of alternate targets for the Anti-Aircraft types thus making it harder to find and hit the manned aircraft.

Just sayin'.....

 

[dimsum]

Once some real UCAVs are available in numbers that actually allow them to be used tactically I would expect them to be flying as "wing men" to a couple of manned fighters.....

Somebody needs to be "on the ground" to visually confirm the targeting. The UCAVs would likely do a great job of actually carrying the strike weapons, flying "wild weasel" screens, or just supplying a bunch of alternate targets for the Anti-Aircraft types thus making it harder to find and hit the manned aircraft.

Just sayin'.....

That would be the JTAC/FOO/FAC.  Speaking in broad terms, when the fighter is rolling in and looking through the Sniper pod, it's no different than the Predator/Reaper/UCAV with the camera on the target.  The only difference is that if the fighter were to be shot down, there would be no need for a CSAR mission.

 

[SupersonicMax]

That would be the JTAC/FOO/FAC.  Speaking in broad terms, when the fighter is rolling in and looking through the Sniper pod, it's no different than the Predator/Reaper/UCAV with the camera on the target.  The only difference is that if the fighter were to be shot down, there would be no need for a CSAR mission.

You don't always need people on the ground to validate the target. 

 

[Journeyman]

Just some additional fluff to your thinking on the demise of manned aircraft et al....

Consider that for most large-item procurement, you're looking at 9-13 years before the first piece of equipment is on the ground...or along side (yes, I know Hillier beat that all to hell with the Leo 2s). We then habitually hold it on inventory for 30 years, with two peaks/troughs in capability, assuming a mid-life refit of sorts.

Even if one puts more emphasis on capability-based planning, rather than Cold War-style threat-based planning, who here knows what the strategic environment will be like in 2035? 2050?

When are we likely to see effective UCAVs such that the CF will commit to having them in Cold Lake 9-13 years later? At that time will they have the requisite flexibility we now have with manned aircraft (ie - are we likely to commit to 'a work in progress' or will we waffle retain options until the technology is quite mature?

      :dunno:  Me neither

 

[HeavyHooker]

Too much sunk $, too expensive to fill the gaps with far less capable fleets of very old maintenance piggy aircrafts

Like the Comanche right?  Too big to fail kind of thing?  Just a thought...

I know that this will meet resistance here but what about the idea of a new jet that is affordable in greater numbers (yes, F/A-18E/F, I am looking at you) where we buy twice as many for much less than the currently rising cost of the F-35 and then a fleet of Reaper/Preds with the remainder.

Before the big flame war begins, here is my argument: 
The jets keep Cold Lake and B-Ville rocking and they fulfil our NORAD commitment with more numbers and bite (more hardpoints, slightly longer range) and fulfil our domestic fighter necessity.  It gives us more jets for more aircrews to defend more targets.  With the larger fleet of fighters, it also provides the opportunity to deploy fighters if req'd and still have acceptable numbers at home.  Also, we get the jets sooner than the current 2017 (maybe, sorta, kinda, if it goes, etc etc etc).  One last perk is that it quiets critics that we are not buying a large enough fighter force and not accounting for the inevitable losses. 

The UCAV fleet supplies an easily deployable combat proven force at a minimum cost (in comparison) that can augment future missions.  The intimate support provided to TICs for the incredible loiter time is without comparison.  It is affordable and as a chopper dude, the ability for a UAV/UCAV to soak a potentially hot LZ for extended periods of time is not something I would be comfortable without, now that I have been spoiled with it!

Interested to hear replies on this one. 

HH

 

[McG]

I have no dog in this hunt, but I hope that the RCAF has a plan b (Super Hornet?) just in case the F35 is a victim of the US budget crisis.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay will be dealing with the future of the F-35 stealth fighter program when he meets Friday in Halifax with his American counterpart, Leon Panetta.

?Plan B: Convince US to re-open F-22 production and allow export of a multi-role variant to F-35 partner countries?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Julian Fantino's latest from Question Period yesterday:

"Mr. Speaker, all reasonable people agree that the Canadian Forces require a fighter fleet to face the challenges of the 21st century. The best plane and the only state-of-the-art stealth aircraft available to Canada to face the challenges of the next 30 years is the F-35 joint strike fighter. Our plan is on track. We continue to monitor this investment closely through direct contact with Lockheed Martin and the F-35 joint project team. The Minister of National Defence and I will be in Halifax this weekend and will be meeting with the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Mr. Panetta.

(....)

Let me repeat that our plan is on track. We continue to monitor this investment. We are working towards progress. The planes are coming off the production line. Pilots are flying them. They are being delivered to the joint strike fighter team. Not only that, unlike the NDP travelling to the U.S. in an effort to kill and derail thousands of Canadian jobs, when we meet with U.S. authorities, it is to create Canadian jobs .... all reasonable people agree that the Canadian Forces require fighter jets to do the job for the challenges of the 21st century. The best plane and the only state-of-the-art stealth aircraft available to Canada to face the challenges of the next 30 years is the F-35 joint strike fighter. Our plan is on track. We continue to monitor this investment closely through direct contact with Lockheed Martin, as well as the U.S. authorities and the project team. There is no trading our commitment. There is no downgrading of the commitment. We are there. We are on track.

(....)

I can guarantee that the plan is on track. We are sticking with the program. The planes are coming off the production line. They are being flown by pilots who know their business. I prefer to listen to them and to the experts rather than the idle chatter from the opposite side."

 

[WingsofFury]

Before the big flame war begins, here is my argument: 

The jets keep Cold Lake and B-Ville rocking and they fulfil our NORAD commitment with more numbers and bite (more hardpoints, slightly longer range) and fulfil our domestic fighter necessity.  It gives us more jets for more aircrews to defend more targets.  With the larger fleet of fighters, it also provides the opportunity to deploy fighters if req'd and still have acceptable numbers at home.  Also, we get the jets sooner than the current 2017 (maybe, sorta, kinda, if it goes, etc etc etc).  One last perk is that it quiets critics that we are not buying a large enough fighter force and not accounting for the inevitable losses.

75nm in the grand scheme of things doesn't do much for an aircraft when it comes to range.  Also, when you consider that one of the stations on the Super Hornet will be used for a targeting pod, it drops the number of hardpoints to the equivalent number on the F-35.  Add to this equation the LO characteristics of the F-35 along with the DAS and you have a vastly superior platform with much greater situational awareness than anything else out there.

The RCAF currently flies approx 80 CF-18's, and we deployed 7 to Libya while still maintaining our NORAD requirements here at home.  With the purchase of 65 F-35's, which will bring greater combat capabilities than the current fleet of CF-18's to the battlefield, I'm willing to wager that a smaller number can be deployed and still maintain combat efficiency equal or greater to that shown by the CF-18's in their recent deployment. 

With that being said, I'd like to see more purchased - say a fleet of 80 aircraft, provided it fits into the $9B which the government has earmarked for the acquisition.

 

[WingsofFury]

?Plan B: Convince US to re-open F-22 production and allow export of a multi-role variant to F-35 partner countries?

The F-22 line will never reopen, and the current variant of the F-22 is a multi role platform although not a very efficient one.

That is why the F-35 was developed - to work alongside the Raptor, not to replace it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Maybe we can buy these:

Chengdu J-20: China's 5th Generation Fighter

They are supposed to be in production in 2018.

 

[GAP]

British Harriers Join The U.S. Marine Corps
November 18, 2011
Article Link

Britain is selling all its Harrier jet fighters, spare parts and ancillary to the U.S. Marine Corps. The American marines are the largest operator of Harrier aircraft, with 140 AV-8Bs in service.

A year ago, Britain retired its fleet of 74 Harrier vertical-takeoff jets as a cost-cutting measure. The aircraft were put into storage, but with enough maintenance services to keep them in shape for rapid reactivation. It was hoped that a buyer could be found. The American marines were not interested initially, because they were expecting the new F-35B to arrive in time to replace their aging Harriers. The F-35B has suffered numerous delays, and is now threatened with cancellation. This led to the purchase of Britain's Harrier aircraft and spare parts. This will keep the marine Harriers in service for at least another two decades. Without the infusion of British equipment, the American Harriers would have been retired in about fifteen years.

Most of the British Harriers will be cannibalized for spare parts. The British and American Harriers are largely identical. A lot of the electronics is different, but the airframes and engines are interchangeable. There is agreement on the price for the stock of spare parts ($50 million), but negotiations continue (in the form of dueling spreadsheets) over what the decommissioned British Harriers are worth. This issue is expected to be resolved before the end of the year. The 74 British Harriers could sell for half a billion dollars or more.
More on link

 

[WingsofFury]

The F-35B has suffered numerous delays, and is now threatened with cancellation.

No offence, but with your highlighting you're making the same error that many in the MSM are making - thinking that whatever happens to the B model is happening or going to happen to the A model which is the variant which Canada is purchasing.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest out of Halifax.....

"Defence Minister Peter MacKay and U.S. Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta dismissed speculation that budget pressures will cause their countries to pull back from the F-35 jet purchase on Friday when they spoke at the Halifax International Security Forum.  "There is no fifth generation aircraft other than the F-35 available to Canada and the United States," MacKay told reporters at a joint press conference with Panetta following a bilateral meeting. "This program is going ahead."  "Clearly budgetary pressures are going to lead to speculation, we are dealing with our budgets as all countries are dealing with [their] budgets but we are not wavering on our commitment to this program," MacKay said.  Panetta called the F-35 the "fighter plane for the future." His department has been asked to slash more than $450 billion from its budget over the next 10 years, Panetta said. While it looks for savings it will also look for areas of investment and the F-35 program is one of those areas, he said.  Despite the budget pressures, Panetta said he is "very confident" that his department will get the funding for the procurement ...."

CBC.ca, 18 Nov 11

 

[GAP]

No offence, but with your highlighting you're making the same error that many in the MSM are making - thinking that whatever happens to the B model is happening or going to happen to the A model which is the variant which Canada is purchasing.

No I am not. I am pointing out that they bought the Harriers because of anticipated delays...nothing more.

 

[WingsofFury]

No I am not. I am pointing out that they bought the Harriers because of anticipated delays...nothing more.

I apologise -  :facepalm: - what I meant to say, and please don't take this to reflect on you, is that comments made about the -B model are often attributed to the -A model. 

I've done too much posting today...time for a nap and then to go take some pictures...  :nod:

 

[FoverF]

Like the Comanche right?  Too big to fail kind of thing?  Just a thought...

This is a valid point. But if 'too big to fail' actually exists, then the F-35 qualifies. It's biggest single arms procurement contract ever.

I know that this will meet resistance here but what about the idea of a new jet that is affordable in greater numbers (yes, F/A-18E/F, I am looking at you) where we buy twice as many for much less than the currently rising cost of the F-35 and then a fleet of Reaper/Preds with the remainder....
Interested to hear replies on this one. 

HH

Initial purchase cost is not the biggest factor here. Operating costs will outstrip acquisition cost very quickly.

Operating costs mainly of:

Fuel
Engine Overhauls
Manpower
Infrastructure

A larger fleet of Super Hornets is almost certainly going to be much more expensive on every one of those points. More airframes, with more engines, burning more fuel, with more air and ground crews.

I'm not saying F/A-18E/Fs are a bad idea, I'm just saying that we're unlikely to be able to afford more than 80 or so airframes regardless of what they are (with possible exception of the Gripen).

 

[HeavyHooker]

Although initial purchase cost is not the largest factor here, it is a considerable one.  You make a good point but it is not like there is one large purse with F-35 cash in it. All of the points you mentioned come from different wallets from within that purse so it is not quite as cut and dry as your post.  But yes, in simple terms the fuel budgets would be higher and there would be more crews. 

I don't personally see the manpower (maintenance) budget increasing however since replacement parts for the F-35 would have to be considerably more expensive.  Also, Engine Overhauls and infrastructure shouldn't come in to play here since the existing infrastructure in Cold Lake and B-Ville are already equipped for 2nd and some 3rd line maint on the F/A-18s

HH

 

[h3tacco]

This is a valid point. But if 'too big to fail' actually exists, then the F-35 qualifies. It's biggest single arms procurement contract ever.

Initial purchase cost is not the biggest factor here. Operating costs will outstrip acquisition cost very quickly.

Operating costs mainly of:

Fuel
Engine Overhauls
Manpower
Infrastructure

A larger fleet of Super Hornets is almost certainly going to be much more expensive on every one of those points. More airframes, with more engines, burning more fuel, with more air and ground crews.

I'm not saying F/A-18E/Fs are a bad idea, I'm just saying that we're unlikely to be able to afford more than 80 or so airframes regardless of what they are (with possible exception of the Gripen).

The most accurate statement on the F-35 O&M and support costs would be TBD. But according to a Finanical Times article in June 2011:


"For years Lockheed insisted that the running costs of the aircraft would be less than equivalents such as the F-16. But those numbers have fallen by the wayside. The Pentagon now expects the F-35 to cost about 33 per cent more than the F-16s it aims to replace." [Note this is specifically operating cost and not acquisition costs]

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/51ef654a-988f-11e0-94d7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1eM6RA23T

I think it is fair to say no one really knows if a fleet of Superhornets (or whatever fighter) would be more expensive to operate than a fleet of F-35s because no one knows the cost to operate the F-35.

 

[WingsofFury]

Protecting future assets...

Donley Vows To Protect F-35, KC-46, Bomber

Nov 21, 2011
 
By Guy Norris 

LOS ANGELES — The U.S. Air Force will fight to protect key programs and capabilities from the drastic defense budget cuts being prepared by the congressional “super committee.”

Although the scale of these cuts is yet to be revealed, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley outlined nine key areas where core missions and capabilities will be protected from wholesale reductions. Speaking at the Air Force Association Global Warfare Symposium here, Donley lists the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, KC-46A tanker and “long-range strike family of systems, including the new bomber,” as vital to the Air Force’s goals of sustaining ongoing modernization and future air superiority.

Full article can be found here

 

[WingsofFury]

Meanwhile, on the testing front....

Lockheed Hits 2011 F-35 Test Targets Early

Nov 21, 2011
 
By Graham Warwick 

Lockheed Martin has passed its 2011 flight-test targets for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, with aircraft now flying at a pace that, if maintained, will allow the company to exceed its target for a significantly higher number of flights in 2012.

The test program completed its 875th flight for the year on Nov. 17, passing the full-year target of 872. A total of 6,809 test points were accumulated on those flights, exceeding the year-end target of 6,622, says J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed vice president for F-35 test and verification.

The rest of the article can be found here.