F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[PPCLI Guy]

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.

Hale:  Would you agree that the sky that planes fly in is blue?  Because if so, that will be the first time you have ever agreed with anything in this thread, other than that which already confirms your rigid bias.

I'm out - I think I will visit Rabble.ca for some actual discussions.

 

[observor 69]

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.)

I agree E.R., confusion reins. The article spells out the dilemma. F-15s, Super Hornets maybe a mix with UAVs all can be seen as sensible but doubt ridden choices.

 

[aesop081]

How many times did our CF 18s RTB with weapons because they didn't have the required sensors and targeting systems?

I don't know what the answer to that question is but from my perspective, having flown on OP MOBILE, was that it would have been more of an ROE issue than lack of adequate sensors. I cannot think of a single sortie i was involved in (or briefed on) where weapons were not dropped on a target because the required sensors were not available.

No mention of the ISR missions we didn't fly in Libya,

We flew many "ISR" missions in Libya, with an aircraft much better suited ( though less than perfectly so) to it than a fighter. The jet boys certainly had their part to play in this area but were far from the be-all-end all.

AWACS, JSTARS, P-3C, CP-140, RQ-1, RQ-4, RJ, Sentinel R1, Nimrod R1.......................

missions the F 35 does putting only a single aircrew in peril.

Might do.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I don't know what the answer to that question is but from my perspective, having flown on OP MOBILE, was that it would have been more of an ROE issue than lack of adequate sensors. I cannot think of a single sortie i was involved in (or briefed on) where weapons were not dropped on a target because the required sensors were not available.

Don't want to talk bad about the Sniper Pod, because it is truly a phenomenal piece of kit, however, yes, it did happen we could not PID our targets.  Those were not pre-planned strikes, but on SCAR missions.  And yes, we did ISR.  Most our missions consisted of Armed Recce.

 

[aesop081]

yes, it did happen we could not PID our targets. 

Now, was it because the pod wasn't up to the job or because of outside factors (imposed operating altitudes, standoff, etc...) ?

I remember on occasion being able to tell i was looking at a T-55 but couldn't tell if it was pro-Ghad or TNC. One one occasion, the fighter we were working with did not drop for that very same reason.

If you cant tell if its bad guy or good guy, F-18 or F-35 wont make a difference, no ?

 

[SupersonicMax]

Now, was it because the pod wasn't up to the job or because of outside factors (imposed operating altitudes, standoff, etc...) ?

I remember on occasion being able to tell i was looking at a T-55 but couldn't tell if it was pro-Ghad or TNC. One one occasion, the fighter we were working with did not drop for that very same reason.

If you cant tell if its bad guy or good guy, F-18 or F-35 wont make a difference, no ?

Sensors on the JSF will be better.  Yes, it will be the Sniper, however it will be an improved version. Having seen what it can do, I was impressed, along with the array of sensors that come with the jet.  It is truly something eye watering.

 

[aesop081]

  It is truly something eye watering.

Cool.

 

[Haletown]

Hale:  Would you agree that the sky that planes fly in is blue?  Because if so, that will be the first time you have ever agreed with anything in this thread, other than that which already confirms your rigid bias.

I'm out - I think I will visit Rabble.ca for some actual discussions.

CAVU in my world and it smells real pretty too.

Do enjoy The Rabble but remember to wash carefully when you leave and use at least 10% bleach solution to avoid becoming a carrier.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

CAVU in my world and it smells real pretty too.

Do enjoy The Rabble but remember to wash carefully when you leave and use at least 10% bleach solution to avoid becoming a carrier.

I know that there is a yawn smiley somewhere............\\Oh yes, ther it is:

:boring: :boring: :boring:

 

[Haletown]

Now this is a computer game . . . 

http://www.businessinsider.com/bi-f-35-pilot-training-simulators-2012-3#

 

[aesop081]

On the subject of price:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/first-raaf-jsfs-to-cost-130m-each/story-e6frg8yo-1226314244468

First RAAF Joint Strike Fighters to cost $130m each, new estimates reveal

From: AAP March 30, 2012 10:08AM


AUSTRALIA can expect to pay about $130 million each for its first two Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft and an average of about $85 million if it opts to buy 100.

These increased cost figures come in the US Defence Department's selected acquisition report for 2011 (SAR11) presented to Congress overnight.

The report is an update on major US defence programs including the Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF.

Despite the apparent price hikes, the Australian Defence Force is confident final prices will be lower because the most recent fixed-price incentive contract was significantly below the SAR10 cost estimate.

Australia's first two aircraft will be produced in a later contract lot.

SAR11 shows an increase in costs owing to a number of factors, although it is not the substantial blowout tipped by some commentators.

One change relates to accounting practice, with JSF costs now based on 2012 dollars rather than the 2002 dollars used over the past decade. Taking into account inflation, that indicates an apparent cost increase of some 25 per cent.


Real cost increases apparently stem from decisions by the US and other nations to defer purchase of 242 aircraft until later in the program. That has the effect of delaying the move to high-rate production when greater efficiencies drive costs down.

As well, Lockheed Martin faces unspecified additional costs to rework existing aircraft to overcome faults discovered during the test program, an issue referred to as concurrency.

Australia is considering acquiring up to 100 JSF aircraft but has so far contracted to buy just 14. A decision on the next tranche of 58 will come next year.

JSF has faced steady criticism that it will be late, expensive and won't deliver the promised level of capability.

For Australia, SAR11 indicates Australia's first two aircraft, scheduled for delivery in the US from 2014, will cost about A$130 million, based on 2012 prices and a US1.03 exchange rate.

Each of the first 14 aircraft will average about A$110 million, in line with previous defence estimates.

Across the entire program of 100 aircraft, Australia can expect to pay an average of $85 million each, compared with a $75 million figure cited in 2008 and based on the less favourable US$0.92 exchange rate.

Because JSF development will continue for at least the next four years and the start of full rate production has been pushed out to 2019, definitive JSF costs remain elusive.

In Canberra last week, JSF program head Tom Burbage said Australia could still expect to pay an average $US70 million ($A67 million) with early production aircraft costing more and later aircraft less.

 

[WingsofFury]

Japan and the F-35: What to do?

by Mark Miller

Opinions Apr. 02, 2012 - 06:49AM JST

Many critics have questioned the viability of a single engine strike aircraft that has a limited range, no ability to super-cruise, does not work well from short landing strips, and might be an overly-complex hangar queen, as the sole fighter aircraft for nations such as Australia and Canada; but what about Japan?

As more nations develop stealth fighters, then the use of radar as the main target acquisition device will be taken over by infrared, wake tracking, electro-optics, and radio/electronic chatter detection – thereby side-stepping radar stealth features – in short order.

If the F-35’s many technical problems are finally resolved and it becomes a proven combat capable aircraft, then it might be a valuable first-day-of-war weapons platform that can take out an enemy’s air defense capabilities, and decimate their command, control and communications infrastructure.

And further into the article...

The 4-nation consortium (Britain, Germany, Italy, and Spain) that has developed the Typhoon, of which several hundred have been ordered or built, may well be the forerunner among potential competitors for an aircraft that would meet the medium-term air force needs, and provide the greatest boost to aerospace research and development, and industrial growth.

This may also prove true for Canada, when they have to re-think the JSF. This could create acquisition and production synergies between our two nations; potentially making for a consortium of several allied nations, thereby reducing costs, and increasing effectiveness.

More at the link ->  http://www.japantoday.com/category/opinions/view/japan-and-the-f-35-what-to-do

 

[WingsofFury]

Photo Release -- Northrop Grumman Delivers First F-35 Center Fuselage Produced by Integrated Assembly Line

PALMDALE, Calif., Apr 2, 2012 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation's /quotes/zigman/236055/quotes/nls/noc NOC +0.31% first F-35 center fuselage produced by its Integrated Assembly Line (IAL) was delivered to Lockheed Martin on March 16, 2012. While the company has delivered 69 center fuselages since 2005, this is the first produced using the IAL. The IAL maximizes robotics and automation, providing additional capacity and assembly capability while meeting engineering tolerances that are not easily achieved using manual methods.

Photos accompanying this release are available at: http://media.globenewswire.com/noc/mediagallery.html?pkgid=12246

And a quote from the article....

"The Integrated Assembly Line's approach to tool design and fabrication marks a transition into a new way of business for Northrop Grumman," said Michelle Scarpella, vice president of the F-35 program for Northrop Grumman. "Through the implementation of a much more efficient design-to-assembly process, the Integrated Assembly Line enables the team to simultaneously achieve higher quality, reduce costs and increase efficiency."

Here's the link ->  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/photo-release-northrop-grumman-delivers-first-f-35-center-fuselage-produced-by-integrated-assembly-line-2012-04-02

 

[WingsofFury]

John Ivison: Government plans to re-evaluate F-35 program when harsh AG report drops

John Ivison  Apr 2, 2012 – 3:32 PM ET | Last Updated: Apr 2, 2012 6:01 PM ET

The Harper government will commit to re-evaluating the F-35 fighter jet program Tuesday, in response to a scathing Auditor-General’s report that is expected to charge Department of National Defence officials with misleading Parliament.

The government will respond to the report from new Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson, by launching a multi-pronged action plan that includes a freeze on spending on the F-35 at $9-billion and committing to annual updates to Parliament on the progress of the program, according to sources. The government will also make the Public Works department the lead player on the F35 file by setting up a new secretariat within the department, overseen by a committee of deputy ministers. This secretariat will be charged with reviewing the F35 acquisition to make sure it is compliant with procurement policies.

However, it is the commitment to explore alternatives to the F-35 that will garner most attention, since the opposition parties have long called for an open competition to replace the aging CF18 fleet.

Link ->  http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/02/john-ivison-government-will-commit-to-re-evaluating-f-35-program-in-response-to-upcoming-auditor-generals-report-sources-say/

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is the relevant chapter of the AG's report. It is pretty sad reading, from a bureaucratic process standpoint - the government, the bureaucracy, is shown to be timid - especially in DND, parochial and too much under the political thumb.

The current Conservative government has some wiggle room - the AG highlights the fact that DND marched along with a Liberal programme, telling the Conservatives, over and over again, that all was well because, presumably, that's what they the bureaucrats and generals, thought cabinet wanted to hear.

The government's response - another layer of management in PWGSC - is typical and typically shallow.

The problem is that defence procurement needs a one, firm, accountable hand - making Fantino the procurment czar was a step in the right direction the next logical step is to take ALL defence procurement away from both DND and PWGSC and establish a new agency, answerable to cabinet through it's own, front rank, minister, to do it.

 

[Rifleman62]

Does this mean three or four procurement strikes and the Air Force is OUT; F-35, C-17, Chinook, and Cyclone.

 

[Haletown]

Here is the relevant chapter of the AG's report.

Thank you . . .  some light reading for lunch time today.

It appears from the news media coverage so far today, that despite the overuse of the word "scathing" in the headlines,  little has really changed. Slap on the wrist for DND,  new committee work for the bureaucracy, but the F-35 remains the aircraft of choice.

One point is unclear - if they do go to a competition, who gets to write the SOR, who decides the competitive parameters?  It appears to still be DND, which means they can still get what they want.

I'll be curious to see how the AG came up with $25 billion cost estimate.  Gotta get reading.

 

[dapaterson]

Does this mean three or four procurement strikes and the Air Force is OUT; F-35, C-17, Chinook, and Cyclone.

Well, C-17 was on time and well under budget, and Chinook is still looking like it will be on time and on budget.  (On time and on budget refer to the amounts approved by the Government of Canada for the procurement and related support equipment and infrastructure.)

 

[Rifleman62]

Two balls, two strikes?

I thought I saw something that the PM was miffed at DND re the procurement of the Chinook?

 

[Haletown]

meanwhile, outside of the Ottawa PPG bubble zone, an interesting read on why sensor fusion matters

http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-as-a-%E2%80%9Cflying-sensor-fusion-engine%E2%80%9D-positioning-the-fleet-for-%E2%80%9Ctron%E2%80%9D-warfare/