F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[SeaKingTacco]

That will do it, too.

 

[aesop081]

That will do it, too.

Its a good deal for Saab. From what i understand, the only holdup to the Flygvapnet buying into Grippen NG was the lack of a foreign launch customer. Swiss companies can probably get in on the development and production.

 

[WingsofFury]

The article i read that news from stated that the decision had been made on cost grounds. The Saab bid was the lowest of the types evaluated.

This peaked my interest to do a bit more research on the acquisition, below is what I found.

The final three in the competition were the Rafale, Eurofighter, and the eventual winner - the Gripen NG.

The Super Hornet offered solid performance, and was a legitimate competitor, with pricing that could match or beat competitors like the Rafale and Eurofighter – but it was flying into strong headwinds. In the end, the questions became moot. Boeing looked at the RFP requirements, and bowed out.

All three bidders provided good offset packages that were essentially equivalent. The industrial participation package was also attractive across the board, the Swiss say.

Then it gets a little interesting...

On Jan. 29/12,  Dassault makes Switzerland a new offer: 18 Rafale fighters for SFR 2.7 billion (EUR 2.24 billion, $2.96 billion), instead of 22 Gripens for SFR 3.1 billion.  On a per-plane basis, that’s 17.5% less than Dassault’s reported final offer of SFR 4 billion for 22 Rafales.

Why is this important?

Because the Swiss opposition parties are, more than likely, going to force a national referendum on the matter, just like they did with the 1993 F/A-18 Hornet sale.  Under Swiss law, it’s possible to force a referendum with 50,000 signatures across at least 8 cantons, gathered within 100 days. The Swiss Green Party and their allies have stated that they intend to try.  The Swiss government has already stated that Parliament has already decided that its fighter purchase would not be validated by a referendum. 

Could constitutional bickering also bog down the acquisition time?

According to the link below, win or lose, the process can be expected to delay a secure contract to 2013 or later where the price is expected to increase from the $3.5 billion, probably more by 2014* for the 22 planes.

There's a lot of interesting factors at play in this situation, will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next couple of years.

*insinuation made by article, however, if accurate, it would show that at least one other country outside of the -35 partner countries are expecting rising prices for aircraft acquisition contracts, but are making the purchase because the platform offers long term savings.

Article Referenced:  http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/switzerland-replacing-its-f-5s-04624/

 

[GAP]

Canada convenes international meeting over troubled F-35 fighters
By Reuters and Postmedia News, Postmedia News February 11, 2012
Article Link

WASHINGTON - Washington's plan to further slow production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is prompting Canada to convene a meeting with seven other international partners as the countries rethink their own orders for the stealthy new fighter jet.

Canada has committed to purchasing as many as 65 of the planes, but delays and shrinking orders threaten to drive up costs each country must bear for what is already the most expensive weapon system in history.

The Pentagon is restructuring the program for the third time in recent years; a move that will delay savings that would come from building more planes faster.

In January, Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino said in a statement the Canadian government is still committed to the F-35 program, but that he had ordered Defence Department officials in Ottawa to investigate what implications the Pentagon's decision would have on Canada.

International partners who were banking on the savings as they face their own budget pressures are balking at the shift, according to multiple government and industry sources in the U.S. and overseas.

Lockheed Martin Corp., the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier, and U.S. officials who run the $382-billion US weapons program are anxiously preparing for a meeting in Australia in mid-March where the partners - Canada, Britain, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Australia, Turkey and the Netherlands - will outline their revamped procurement plans.
More on link

 

[Haletown]

Its a good deal for Saab. From what i understand, the only holdup to the Flygvapnet buying into Grippen NG was the lack of a foreign launch customer. Swiss companies can probably get in on the development and production.

Someone has some 'splaining to do  . . . .


"Leaked to the Swiss weekly Le Matin Dimanche , two confidential Swiss Air Force reports conclude that the Swedish-made Gripen combat aircraft does not meet minimal air policing requirements, contrary to declarations made last November by Defense Minister Ueli Maurer who said the Gripen “satisfied Swiss military requirements.”


"What particularly troubles the Swiss is that the mission the Gripen scored the worst on is the only one that the Swiss air force is certain it will have to undertake: protecting the sovereignty of its airspace. The Swedish aircraft only scored 5.33 out of 10 on this mission, well beneath the minimum 6 required by the air force. Gripen's low score overall on this mission was the result of three counter-performances: slow “quick reaction alert” on which it scored 4.7, insufficient flight performance (5.5) and nowhere near enough endurance (3.8).



http://tinyurl.com/7zo2fec

 

[aesop081]

Someone has some 'splaining to do  . . . .

Maybe.

Given that the other contenders were unaffordable, the Swiss didn't have much choice. A quick glance at the documents also lead me to believe that too much faith is put into the data obtained from trials with C/D Grippen, given that the NG is still mostly in development.

 

[Good2Golf]

Agreed, it was certainly a curious selection.

As was the the choice of India in selecting the Rafale over the Eurofighter.  But I guess what they say is true, cash is certainly king and the cheaper, more viable aircraft won out based on that alone.

I find that Japan's selection of the -35 was based on a sound competition, which, IMHO, would have resembled the one which could potentially occurr here in Canada should a competition ever be held.  Of course, the selection of the -35 by Japan only further shows that the Conservatives have made the right decision to continue the Liberals' plan to acquire the F-35 when they (Liberals) selected the right a/c in 2002 based on the criteria outlined and are saving the country the money which would go towards a competition anyways.

There, fixed that for you WoF. 


Regards
G2G

 

[WingsofFury]

There, fixed that for you WoF. 

Regards
G2G

LMAO....thanks.  :nod:

 

[WingsofFury]

From the Hansard yesterday...

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon is slashing its purchase of the F-35s. This follows program cuts and concerns from Great Britain, Turkey, Australia, Italy, Norway and Israel. However, here in the House, the Conservatives are doggedly determined to say that everything is just fine.

    The government is panicking and asking Washington for an emergency meeting, but here in the House it still will not tell Canadians the truth. The truth is the government does not have a plan B. Why can the government not bring that forward right now to protect our men and women who are serving in our military?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, that premise is absolutely incorrect. The Royal Canadian Air Force plays an important role in protecting our sovereignty and developing the kinds of assets that are necessary in today's and tomorrow's predicaments.

    Canada's CF-18s are nearing the end of their usable life. The meeting the member referred to is not an emergency at all. It has been in the works for a long time among all of the members.

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): 
    Mr. Speaker, even Conservatives have to give up their fantasy that their billion dollar boondoggle is still on track. The U.S. is confirming it will delay its F-35 orders and it is going to cut $1.6 billion just as a start. The whole program is now in disarray, meaning higher costs for Canadian taxpayers. The Government of Canada has now called an emergency international meeting on the F-35 fiasco.

    Will the government agree to finally apply common sense and put this matter out to tender for our men and women in the service?

Hon. Julian Fantino (Associate Minister of National Defence, CPC): 
    Mr. Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, there is no emergency meeting. However, the rhetoric and the untruths seem to prevail.

    Let me assure the member opposite that we are working diligently with all of our partners to ensure that our men and women in the military are given the tools they need and deserve to do the job we require them to do in our country.

 

[Haletown]

Nice rant . . .  the desperation of the NDP/Official Opposition to slag the government takes many forms of hyperbole, exaggeration, distortions and smears.

The NDP is learning how to be an Opposition.  About time.

 

[WingsofFury]

Excerts from a Globe and Mail piece today...

By drastically slowing production of the trouble-plagued F-35 – already years late and more-expensive than expected – Mr. Obama’s newly-unveiled Pentagon budget should save American taxpayers more than $15-billion over the next five years.

But this isn't a reduction in total numbers bought...

U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta recently endorsed the continued development of the F-35 when he outlined planned cuts to military spending. The United States expects to spend $382-billion over 20 years to buy 2,443 of the fighters.

Early deliveries were vital because Canada’s worn-out F-18s won’t last much longer without hugely expensive rebuilding to keep the warplanes, modernization and repairs.

True enough.

Ottawa’s estimate of $16-billion for 65 F-35s has already drawn much derision. An independent Parliamentary estimate pegged each F-35’s cost at $128-million. The latest Pentagon estimate is over $150-million per plane.

F-35A: US$122 million 2011 flyaway cost.  The only variant at or perhaps over $50M is the -B.

With lifetime program costs ranging as high as $1-trillion and futuristic visions of cheaper, more effective, unmanned combat drones quickly becoming flying realities, the F-35s’ ballooning costs are a juicy target.

Would love to see those effective combat drones that are becoming flying realities...

Whole article found here:  Obama’s spending cuts could mean trouble for Canada’s F-35 plans

 

[Haletown]

Interesting choice of hyperbole in the article  . . .  "By drastically slowing production".    Of course, the author fails to provide any facts or actual data to back up this claim.

So here's what's actually happening.

The USAF  decreased its planned buy of F-35As from 24 to 19 aircraft for fiscal 2013.    -5 airframes

The USN  is boosting its buy of F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing versions from three to six in the 2013 request.  +3 airframes.

-5+3 = net  delta of -2.  Don't think many people would consider two less airframes a "drastic cut".

The article is clearly trying to direct readers in a decision choice by leaving out facts that would allow a reader to decide for themselves.

The best of contemporary journalism.

 

[WingsofFury]

Lots of information to process over the last little while, here's the latest.

U.S. slowdown on F-35 purchases to raise cost - Lockheed Martin

Feb 14 (Reuters) - A U.S. plan to drag out purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet would increase "somewhat" the total cost paid by the United States and international allies, Lockheed Martin said on Tuesday.

"It will raise the overall average cost of the total procurement of all the airplanes bought," said Tom Burbage, head of Lockheed Martin's F-35 programme, a day after the Pentagon said it would slow procurement of the fledgling radar-evading aircraft.

The Pentagon on Monday confirmed plans to postpone production of 179 F-35s over the next five years to save $15.1 billion, including $1.6 billion by funding 13 fewer aircraft in fiscal year 2013.

Source - http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/norway-lockheed-idUSL5E8DE6KJ20120214

So that would mean higher costs for aircraft purchased over the next five years, until 2018.  Canada's

deliveries would come during the ‘peak production’ years between 2016-2023.

Source - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/obamas-spending-cuts-could-mean-trouble-for-canadas-f-35-plans/article2337524/

So that leaves me to ponder whether we'll wait before buying the planes unless the US announces an increase in their per year buy before our proposed purchase year of 2016 or, even better, we act in unison with other countries who have the desire to buy earlier as we do based on the age of their current fleets and work with Lockheed to reduce whatever the overall average cost will be...

Will a possible change in US leadership mean an increase in military spending, thus a possible increase in fighter acquisition?

Will we follow Australia and acquire Super Hornets as a stop gap until the F-35's are available at what should be a lower price once full scale production starts, thus giving us a multi platform fleet for a few years, or will the decision be made to put off the F-35 purchase for another fleet entirely?

IMHO, missing out at the chance of having a frontline fighter with cutting edge technology beyond what is currently available and more importantly in service beyond 2030 would be crazy.

I can't wait to see what comes of the meetings!

 

[PuckChaser]

Will we follow Australia and acquire Super Hornets as a stop gap until the F-35's are available at what should be a lower price once full scale production starts, thus giving us a multi platform fleet for a few years, or will the decision be made to put off the F-35 purchase for another fleet entirely?

We can't afford "stop-gap" fighters. Whatever we get, it's going to have to last for at least 30 years, if not more and the opposition would have a field day if we decided to make a second purchase of fighters so soon after the "stop-gap". I really like what the F-35 has to bring to the table, but I think Lockheed is shooting themselves in the foot by not delivering on time and on cost so far.

 

[Jammer]

Single engine...useless in Canada.

Unproven airframe

Very limited steath characteristics that will be defeated in it's lifetime

Limited weapons load

No internal gun

Even the F-22 has to hang external tanks, thus negating any form of stealth.

The F-18E...lower trg costs

Combat proven airframe

Scalable mission loads

Who cares about stealth

Multi engine for increased reliability and lower attrition rates due to mechanical failure

 

[WingsofFury]

And now that we have Jammers point of view...lol

This just in from Reuters....

Italian newspaper said Italy to reduce F-35 order by 40

Italy will cut investment in Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 stealth fighter plane as part of an overall reduction in military spending, Defence Minister Giampaolo Di Paola said on Tuesday.

"The F-35 was revised like all the other weapons programmes," Di Paola said after a Cabinet meeting that approved the military spending plan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/14/defence-italy-f-idUSL5E8DE7YK20120214

So there's the rub...we're not reducing military spending, we're increasing it while at the same time increasing our capabilities.  And it's because of that increase in capabilities that we're getting the F-35 and not another platform to act as a stop gap.

 

[WingsofFury]

Single engine...useless in Canada.    Different engine concept than previous, equivalent to F-22 Raptor performance and tech which hasn't incurred engine failure in any airframes

Unproven airframe  So was the Hornet when we bought it...

Very limited steath characteristics that will be defeated in it's lifetime  Hardly, and any stealth characteristics are better than zero

Limited weapons load  Nope - it can carry a greater number of munitions on multiple stations, both internal and external based on whatever the mission profile is.

No internal gun  Wrong.  The F-35A includes a GAU-22/A cannon mounted internally with 182 rounds

Even the F-22 has to hang external tanks, thus negating any form of stealth.  For ferry flight only, not in combat.

The F-18E...lower trg costs  Sure, because it's a less complex platform than the F-35.

Combat proven airframe  So are the Eurofighter and Rafale, yet they aren't cheap either, are they?

Scalable mission loads  See above - F-35 can carry greater array of weapons

Who cares about stealth  That'd be the pilots we're sending into combat.

Multi engine for increased reliability and lower attrition rates due to mechanical failure  Multi engine doesn't necessarily mean an increase in engine reliability or a redux in attrition rates due to mech failure.

 

[Haletown]

Single engine...useless in Canada.

and the reason for this is ?


Unproven airframe

It is a new aircraft

Very limited steath characteristics that will be defeated in it's lifetime

Best stealth of any multirole aircraft by far and second only to the F-22

Limited weapons load

17,000 lb vs 17,500lbs for a Super Hornet. Plus it can carry load in full stealth mode which no other multirole aircraft can do


No internal gun

What is the GAU 22/A doing in the left wing root ?


Even the F-22 has to hang external tanks, thus negating any form of stealth.

The F-18E...lower trg costs

Combat proven airframe

Scalable mission loads

Who cares about stealth

Multi engine for increased reliability and lower attrition rates due to mechanical failure

 

[PuckChaser]

Who cares about stealth  That'd be the pilots we're sending into combat.

Beat me to it. Lets give our pilots the best possible advantage to bring the aircraft and themselves home.

 

[Jammer]

WoF...thanks for the classy dig...well done.

Mea Culpa on some of the tech errors...ie internal cannon
However I'm sure you would agree that hanging anything on the wings or belly will compromise steath capabiltiy.

The reason defence spending is increasing is to afford the damn things if they are bought....basic economics.

i will debate the extenal tanks on the F-22....they are carried on regular patrolling duties in Alaska

Eurofighter and Rafale are markedly less expensive then the F-35

I would submit that dual engines are better than one...The F-104, apart from being utilized and a ground attack role for which it was never designed had a huge attrition rate for engine failures. the F-16 is not immune to this factor as well. All you have to do is compare F-15 to F-16 attrition rates.

All in all the F-18E offers a better value and more can be purchased for the same budget.

Stealth...it's been nothing but a problem for the F-22...unless LM has learned from it issues with F-22. This has the potential to be a white elephant.