F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[FSTO]

Take a deep breath Evan. We know it is difficult, being a good little downtown Toronto city boy CBC type, to understand guns & military stuff, but even a few minutes of really, really simple internet research would have prevented you from making this comedy masquerading as news segment. 

You might want to consider in your zeal for an anti F-35 "scoop", some people have played you and the CBC like a cheap piano and set you up to take over the village idiot job.

On the other hand, the amusement value of watching you make a fool of yourself is priceless.

Carry on.

That was my reaction when Evan breathlessly announced the "exclusive" pictures of CORNER BROOK. Pictures that were on Army.ca about a week before.

 

[dapaterson]

I must be incredibly stupid, but I don't see why this is even an issue.  Why should Alan Wilson, a support person skilled in procurement contracts, have any say about which aircraft the users say they need?  Why should the budget gurus control the choice of what is needed are they the ones who will fly and fight it?

Because that is the division of responsibilities.  The DM runs the money, the CDS runs operations.  It's not always neat and clean, but it's effective at ensuring prudent expenditure of limited funds - both on acquisition and on long term support.

The services should not run salivating at the latest bright and shiny, screetching "I want!" like a four year old hearing the bell on an ice cream truck.  Perhaps if they didn't do that they would be delegated responsibility for their own procurement.

The services are responsible to define the requirement - what effect they wish to be able to deliver.  That is passed to the implementors, who are repsonsible for delviering the capabilites requested.  They may come back to those who defined the requirement asking for clarification or for a better understanding or for an explanation of limitations.

 

[Haletown]

Mr.  Williams seems to be very much enjoying his post retirement media spotlight and CBC darling status.  The attempt to establish himself as a brand - the bow tie is visually stunning! - is something he is free to do.

But when you live by the selective quote and memory, so shall you be P-owned by the same.  Time for Rick Hillier to come out of the dark and put Mr. Williams most selective memory and opinions into "perspective" . . .  as only a straight talking Newfie can do ;D

The good news in all this is hardly anyone in Canada watches CBC news anymore.  The viewership that in excess of $1 Billion taxpayer's money buys every year is pitiful.

But then we don't call it the Canadian Broadcorping Castration for nothing.

One last helpful hint for Evan and the rest of the CBC.  When you are reporting on military things, you know guns & stuff, if you see a vehicle with tracks, it might be a tank, but not necessarily be a tank.

I know . . . very, very confusing.  Perhaps you could get Mr. Williams on to explain it all to you.

We do love his jaunty little bow tie.  Makes him look so smart.

 

[aesop081]

That is their duty to make that decision not a TB functionary.

That is rather naiive, at best.

 

[a_majoor]

You don't really believe it would ever do that, do you? 


The CBC seems to want to continue to avail themselves of the services of people who were once the strongest proponents of a program that is fundamentally the very same project it was ten years ago...but now, it is politically expedient to take an opposing view.

You'll likely never see the CBC address the original competition within the JSF program itself -- a competition that took place between Lockheed-Martin (X-35) and Boeing (X-32), ending in 2001 when the X-35 was chosen as the winning design...just several months before Mr. Williams travelled to Washington to commit Canada to the program.


Regards
G2G

While they may not ever openly admit they were taken by their commenter of the moment, I am sure CBC does have little flunkies who read websites like this looking for quotes, gossip, leads etc. A smack in the face like the one they are getting here, combined with the sure knowledge that the blogosphere is also on the case and taking their arguments apart (for the wider world to see) may make them modify their view.

In this case they will take the well worn path and abruptly drop the story like a rock when they see facts coming at them like a tidal bore in the Bay of Fundy. Notice how quiet they have been about Robocalls all of a sudden?

 

[Kalatzi]

F-35s needed to fight alongside allies, MacKay says

Link here http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/f-35s-needed-to-fight-alongside-allies-mackay-says/article2383536/

Summary - That's like the German or British, or ,,,,  defence Minister saying back in the 60's that they needed to buy M60's or F104's or Perry class  to be interoperable

I say this is NATO, I mean NOT A bad idea at all.  Heck, we'll simply have what their having.

Hint I'm try to use I little satire here, in this era of fiscal prudence, lets play a game

If the CBC needs to be toned down, what is another group prepared to tone down. Example given the work of other counties  in camouflage do we really need CADPAT.

</Satire off>

 

[Haletown]

Evan was back at it yesterday on his Power & Politics soapbox.

His argument seems to be:

1.  The F-35 doesn't meet all the 28 SOR's (the helmet issue)

2.  Since it doesn't meet all the SORs we should not be purchasing it.

The concept of something being under development seems lost to him, beyond his reasoning ability. 

It looks like he is hrather ignorant of military procurement processes but believes he has it all figured out.  Or another possibility is that Evan has a secret procurement expert, someone with an axe to grind, an old score to settle with the DND and this expert is feeding Evan with his thin gruel talking points.


Logically then, he would have to also conclude.

1.  None of the new ships in the National Ship Building Program meet the SOR's

2.  We shouldn't have signed contracts for the new ships.

I am sure that when the ship builders in Vancouver and Halifax realize our glorious CBC doesn't think they should build ships and have jobs, they will be very pleased with our State broadcaster.

Very pleased indeed.

Budget day on Thursday.  If I was the FM, CBC would be "changed". 

Very changed indeed.

That $billion++ we squander every year paying for the CBC would be a very nice add to DND's budget.

Or to put that sum in F-35 cost-speak . .  the CBC costs Canadians $45 Billion dollars !!!

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

We haven't signed a contract for ships. We've signed a contract determining where ships will be built if there is a contract for them. The F-35 equivalent would be a contract with an aircraft factory to build whatever aircraft is eventually picked, if any.

 

[WingsofFury]

Exclusive: U.S. sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.45 trillion

Updated 3/29/2012 1:28:10 AM ET

WASHINGTON — The U.S. government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters.

The Pentagon's latest, staggering estimate of the lifetime cost of the F-35 -- its most expensive weapons program -- is up from about $1 trillion a year ago, and includes inflation.

While inflation accounts for more than one-third of the projected F-35 operating costs, military officials and industry executives were quick to point out that it is nearly impossible to predict inflation over the next half-century.

They also argue that no other weapons program's costs have been calculated over such a long period, and that even shorter-term cost projections for other aircraft do not include the cost of modernization programs and upgrades.

More at the link -> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35678731#.T3Pu4JdSQ7o

A couple of key points from the article...

The new baseline forecasts the average cost of the F-35 fighter, including research and development (R&D) and inflation, at $135 million per plane, plus an additional $26 million for the F135 engine built by Pratt & Whitney, a unit of United Technologies Corp.

In 2012 dollars, the average cost of each single-seat, single-engine plane, including R&D, would be $112.5 million, plus $22 million for the engine.

Defense analyst Loren Thompson said three quarters of the cost increases on the F-35 program were linked to government changes in the scope of the program, and the way it was estimating costs.

For instance, he said, the Pentagon initially planned to station the plane at 33 bases, but later changed the number to 49. It initially calculated operating costs over 30 years, but then chose a longer timeframe of 50 years, he said."The program costs appear to be rising much faster than they actually are because the government keeps changing how it calculates things," Thompson said.

 

[Old Sweat]

Here is a piece from the National Post that is, in my opinion, terribly shallow and prone to mixing flying apples with submersible oranges. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Buyer beware the F-35

Michael Byers And Stewart Webb, National Post · Mar. 29, 2012 | Last Updated: Mar. 29, 2012 3:08 AM ET

The sorry tale of the F-35 stealth fighter jets just got worse, and not because Auditor General Michael Ferguson is issuing a report on the Department of National Defence's procurement process next week. For it has emerged that F-35s suffer from - believe it or not - flaky skin.

The ability of F-35s to avoid radar detection depends on a "fibre mat," which is cured into the composite surfaces of the aircraft.

In December 2011, a test version of the F-35 for the first time achieved the design speed of Mach 1.6.

According to Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week, the flight caused "peeling and bubbling" of the stealth coating on the horizontal tails and damage to the engine's thermal panels, and the entire test fleet was subsequently limited to Mach 1.0.

Repairing and replacing stealth materials is a timeand technology-intensive process that reduces the "mission capable rate" of aircraft. Indeed, it has been reported by the U.S. Congressional Research Service that after five years of service the F-35's sister plane, the F-22, has a mission capable rate of just 60%.

If the F-35 has a similar mission capable rate, Canada will, at any given time, only be able to deploy approximately 44 of its planned 65 planes. When attrition through accidents is factored in - and Canada has lost 18 of its CF-18s since 1982 - we could soon have an available fleet of just 30-35 planes, or roughly half of what the Department of National Defence says we need.

We'll also be paying for billions of dollars in additional costs, which might explain why the Canadian government has not released any projections about the maintenance contract it will have to sign with Lockheed Martin, nor indicated whether that contract will be negotiated together with, or after, the contract to purchase the planes.

Anyone who thinks that we're exaggerating these risks should consider the socalled "legacy costs" imposed by our blind-eyed procurement of submarines from the British Navy.

In 1998, Canada bought four second-hand Upholder class submarines for $750-million. Since then, over $3-billion has been spent on repairs, overhauls and upgrades.

Some of that money went toward refitting the submarines to fire MK-48 American torpedoes. The first test torpedo was fired only last month, 14 years after the submarines were purchased.

Equipment-related accidents have also stricken the fleet: A deadly fire within hours of the first sailing; a dented hull that prevented submerging; and a crash into the ocean floor off British Columbia that, had it compromised the pressure hull, could have resulted in the loss of the vessel and all 48 of its crew.

The international arms trade is based firmly on the motto "buyer beware." Legacy costs arise when procurement decisions are made without fully investigating all of the financial implications of new equipment, including maintenance. The risk of such costs only increases when decisions are made to acquire unproven technologies such as stealth.

We know the F-35 program is in crisis. Our ally Australia has acted responsibly, buying 24 new F/A-18 Super Hornets as a stopgap measure while it carefully re-assesses the situation.

Isn't it time for Canada to craft its own "Plan B"?

 

[Haletown]

The Norwegians can sell the program, DND has dropped the ball in the media campaign to let Canadians know why the F-35 is necessary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MtEdfSKgCOQ

 

[Kalatzi]

Reproduced under the fair dealing provision of the copyright act - from Strategy Page

"
British F-35 Data Breach

March 30, 2012: British aircraft manufacturer BAE confirmed that, three years ago, Chinese hackers gained access to classified BAE aircraft design files. This included data on the American F-35 fighter, which BAE is helping to develop and build. BAE was working on the F-35 fuselage, portions of the wings and tail, the fuel system, crew escape system, life support and integration of British components for the British F-35s. All or much of the date on these items was apparently taken by the Chinese hackers"

Dandy, just Dandy. I imagine that if things ever get nasty that some pilots are going to be looking a message on their HUD - Äll your bases are belong to us!"

One has to give the devious b*stards credit however

 

[kj_gully]

The Norwegians can sell the program, DND has dropped the ball in the media campaign to let Canadians know why the F-35 is necessary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MtEdfSKgCOQ

Was really good, the parallels to Canada are pretty obvious. Took me a second or two to figure out how to engage the subtitles....I'm sure the rest of you are far more tech savvy than I

 

[Edward Campbell]

More fuel for the F-35 fire, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions iof the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/weighing-the-factors-in-buying-a-warplane/article2388012/

Weighing the factors in buying a warplane

PAUL KORING

Globe and Mail Update
Last updated Saturday, Mar. 31, 2012

Buying a warplane – like buying a car – is about tradeoffs: versatility, status, safety, reliability, power against cost. Yet almost lost in the raucous debate over whether the Harper government should ditch its plan to buy 65 of the soaringly expensive F-35, stealthy strike fighters – or something more certain and less expensive – is a careful examination of the type of combat missions Ottawa will really send warplanes to fight.

With $9-billion (or $16-billion, depending on who’s counting) of taxpayer dollars to spend and national security at stake, the choice will define and limit Canada’s air-war options for the first half of the century. Getting it wrong is far more dangerous than a Ferrari “van” for soccer moms.

While Lockheed Martin’s F-35 – a so-called fifth-generation strike fighter – is far and away the best available choice for flying bombing runs against a first-rate adversary (think China) in heavily defended airspace full of missiles and modern warplanes, it would be overkill against “softer” targets like Libya.

Warplanes are staggering expensive; the first few F-35s are costing $200-million each but delivery dates and whether ramped-up volumes will knock the price way down – as hoped – remain uncertain. Cheaper alternatives may be no bargain if they can’t wage future wars. Or drones may have so eclipsed manned warplanes in a decade that buying them now may be like outfitting a cavalry with new horses.

Readiness to wage the next war that Canada wants to fight is only part of the choice. Ottawa spends billions on big-ticket military purchases with an eye on votes, Canadian content and buttering up key allies as much as overwhelming combat power. The biggest bang – bombs on target, adversaries shot down – for the buck is only one consideration.

But some claims, like Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s this week that interoperability with allied air forces made the F-35 the only choice, fly in the face of recent reality. More than a dozen different types of warplanes from nine NATO nations flew a tightly co-ordinated, seven-month air war against Libya this year. Interoperability wasn't a problem. And the United States didn’t even bother to deploy its newest warplane – the F-22, which is even more capable that the F-35 – because it wasn’t needed.

Mission: Deep strike

Best choice: F-35 is perhaps the only choice for future deep-strike, full-combat operations

Example: Bombing Iran’s nuclear sites or a full-blown war

Precedent: Canadian warplanes haven't engaged in aerial combat or bombed well-defended targets since the Second World War.

Options: Russia is developing, and India is buying, the Sukhoi T-50, but the program is as “iffy” as the F-35, it might be more expensive and it would lack the interoperability advantages of a U.S.-built fighter-bomber.

Mission: Bombing “easy” targets

Best choice: Upgraded F-18s. Good enough for the U.S. navy and the Australian air force, the newer version of Canada's existing warplanes costs less and can fly all but the most difficult missions. Israel has declared a willingness to fly deep-strike bombing missions against heavily defended Iranian nuclear sites with fighter-bombers developed more than a decade ago, albeit not quite as old as Canada's CF-18s.

Example: Attacks or air support of ground troops in uncontested skies against weakened adversaries

Precedent: Libya, Bosnia, even Canada's involvement in the first Persian Gulf war against Iraq in 1991 was limited to flying missions in relatively “safe” airspace, after the air-defence missiles and warplanes had been destroyed by U.S. strikes.

Options: Upgraded versions of modern, multi-role strike-fighters such as the F-15, the mainstay of the American, Israeli and Saudi air forces, are available and in production. Although non-stealthy, they are vastly superior to Canada's aging F-18s and better than the warplanes being flown by any likely adversary.

Mission: Defending Canada's cities

Best choice: Any modern fighter is more than good enough to intercept, divert and, if necessary, shoot down a hijacked airliner. Canada's gaping hole in its defence of major cities isn't the warplane, it's where they are based. Currently, U.S. fighters in upstate New York, Washington and Vermont offer the only real rapid response

Example: In the event of a Sept. 11, 2001-type terrorist attack – with hijackers turning a fuel-laden jetliner into a suicide-guided missile – Canada's air force offers almost no chance of defending Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, nor most smaller cities. Canada's aging CF-18 warplanes are based in remote Alberta and northern Quebec, too far away for timely response.

Precedent: No serious manned-bomber air threat against Canada has existed since the Soviet Union shifted to ballistic missiles for its long-range strike capacity. The once-routine, now rare “probes” by Russian long-range (and propeller-driver) “Bear aircraft” pose no military threat and require the most basic interceptor craft.

Options: Even small jet fighter-trainers, like the Bombardier-owned T-155 Hawks used to train Canadian fighter pilots, would make effective, inexpensive interceptors to protect Canadian cities at a fraction of the cost of a full-combat aircraft.

Mission: Sovereignty patrol

Best choice: Drones make sense. A pair of Global Hawks flying 24-hour missions could fly from Victoria to Halifax, skirting Canada's Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic coastlines. Sovereignty patrols are more about knowing what's going on than showing up for a couple of weeks a year with a handful of warplanes.

Example: Usually associated with the iconic photos of Canadian fighters intercepting Russian “Bears,” the reality is that Auroras, aging patrol aircraft originally designed for anti-submarine warfare, fly the bulk of “sovereignty” patrols. Less glamorous but far more effective than deploying four F-18s for a few weeks to Inuvik

Precedent: None

Alternatives: Despite the debate, neither F-35s nor any other manned fighter-bomber alternative is needed for routine, long-distance patrols.

I have neither the knowledge nor experience to say which aircraft is the right choice for Canada; I have to trust that the defence staff's decision making process was rigorous and free from outside interference.

The F-35 is, however, a thorn in the government's political side - including, according to CARP, amongst usually reliably Conservative seniors. CARP has, regularly questioned the priority of any military spending vs. seniors' issues and has taken aim at the F-25 because the cost is so high.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

More fuel for the F-35 fire, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions iof the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

That seemed like fairly cogent and unbiased analysis - something generally lacking from this debate...

 

[Haletown]

That seemed like fairly cogent and unbiased analysis - something generally lacking from this debate...

I read it and thought it was a rather shallow and trivial analysis.  What is easy bombing?  No assessment of how to find and attack targets in crowded civilian areas.  How many times did our CF 18s RTB with weapons because they didn't have the required sensors and targeting systems?

No mention of the ISR missions we didn't fly in Libya, no mention of  vastly increased capabilities the F35 brings to the RCAF.  N mention of the admission of the French or Swedes that the Rafale and the Gripen need a two crew configuration to safely and effectively fly Attack missions - missions the F 35 does putting only a single aircrew in peril.

The bit about drones seems like it was added on the end of a story about F 35s to make it long enough to fill up a full column.


DND/RCAF need to get off their collective keesters and start a proper PR campaign to sell this piece of kit to Canadians. Right now they are losing the battle to the media and the Opposition.

Take some lessons from the Norwegians . . .  get some real pilots talking about how they need it, how the sensor fusion makes their missions more doable and their lives better protected. Get some ILS guys explaining how the new aircraft will make their lives better, how they can deploy so much easier . . . .

Canadians will believe real aircrew, just like they'll believe real troops.  Rick Hillier understood this link.

 

[a_majoor]

The F-35 is, however, a thorn in the government's political side - including, according to CARP, amongst usually reliably Conservative seniors. CARP has, regularly questioned the priority of any military spending vs. seniors' issues and has taken aim at the F-25 because the cost is so high.

This is a pretty dangerous road to tread. "Because the cost is so high" can also be applied to the projected $100 billion/year that pensions could cost, not to mention balooning health care costs and so on. The demands on government are going to get greater (and black swans events like interest rate slikes could throw everything out of balance) so discussions should be focused on poicy issues (i.e.  what do we need to do, what is the most effective way to do this and how will we get/manage the resources to do so). Sadly, as evidenced again by the leadup to the budget, policy seems to be the last thing being discussed by anyone on any topic.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I read it and thought it was a rather shallow and trivial analysis.  What is easy bombing?  No assessment of how to find and attack targets in crowded civilian areas.  How many times did our CF 18s RTB with weapons because they didn't have the required sensors and targeting systems?

No mention of the ISR missions we didn't fly in Libya, no mention of  vastly increased capabilities the F35 brings to the RCAF.  N mention of the admission of the French or Swedes that the Rafale and the Gripen need a two crew configuration to safely and effectively fly Attack missions - missions the F 35 does putting only a single aircrew in peril.

The bit about drones seems like it was added on the end of a story about F 35s to make it long enough to fill up a full column.


DND/RCAF need to get off their collective keesters and start a proper PR campaign to sell this piece of kit to Canadians. Right now they are losing the battle to the media and the Opposition.

Take some lessons from the Norwegians . . .  get some real pilots talking about how they need it, how the sensor fusion makes their missions more doable and their lives better protected. Get some ILS guys explaining how the new aircraft will make their lives better, how they can deploy so much easier . . . .

Canadians will believe real aircrew, just like they'll believe real troops.  Rick Hillier understood this link.

Assuming the F-35 is, indeed, the best choice then I agree with you. BUT, my sense is that, within DND, indeed within the CF and even within the RCAF, there is more than the usual level of dissent. It seems to me that before DND can convince Canadians that the F-35 is the right choice it, the Department, needs to be convinced itself.

(That (a higher than usual level of dissent) is only a hunch on my part, not even 'informed' by by any good chats in the mess bar.)

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is a pretty dangerous road to tread. "Because the cost is so high" can also be applied to the projected $100 billion/year that pensions could cost, not to mention balooning health care costs and so on. The demands on government are going to get greater (and black swans events like interest rate slikes could throw everything out of balance) so discussions should be focused on poicy issues (i.e.  what do we need to do, what is the most effective way to do this and how will we get/manage the resources to do so). Sadly, as evidenced again by the leadup to the budget, policy seems to be the last thing being discussed by anyone on any topic.

It is, indeed, a dangerous road, but the prize is political power and politicians need to tread dangerous roads. Prime Minister Harper needs to keep about 40% of Canadians onside for three and a half more years - I'm willing to be that calculus weighs more heavily on his mind than do good policy choices.

 

[FoverF]

We haven't signed a contract for ships. We've signed a contract determining where ships will be built if there is a contract for them. The F-35 equivalent would be a contract with an aircraft factory to build whatever aircraft is eventually picked, if any.

That's not too far off from our involvement in the JSF program, actually.