F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[SeaKingTacco]

Just thought that I would throw something else on the table wrt buying an amphibious ship and then buying the F-35B to possibly operate off of it.  Right now, I'm reading a book about Banshee fighters in the Canadian Navy from 1957-1962.  It is pretty clear from the book that HMCS BONAVENTURE and the Banshee fighter were bought by two different "groups" within the Navy, without necessarily making sure they were compatible together.  Guess what? They weren't.  BONAVENTURE turned out to be too slow and too small for a fighter the size of the Banshee, so the Banshee was retired early in 1962, despite having the best record of exercise intercepts of any Canadian Fighter of the day (mostly because of the sidewinder missile, but I digress).

My point?  IF it is decided that it is important to the CF to operate fighters from a ship again in the future (a mighty big IF, in my opinion).  You had better make sure that before you buy either the ship or the fighter, that you are absolutely convinced that they will work together. 

In my mind, any fighter aircraft that you buy to operate off of any ship of the size we are likely to buy (let's say 20,000-30,000 tonnes, tops) is going to be a compromise and will not do other things like long range air interception in North America really well when it is not embarked.  In other words, we are not going to buy 80-100 VTOL F-35Bs, just because we MIGHT end up operating 4-8 of them off of a amphib someday.  if you want a full performance aircraft without too many compromises, you are going to need a full performance aircraft carrier.

To my way of thinking, buying some form of armed/attack helicopter gives you most of the fire support functions you are likely to need in an expeditionary force, without worrying too much about ship/aircraft incompatibility.  Most of your air defence functions could be better performed by ensuring that your escort ships have a robust missile/radar combination (like a Standard missile with an APAR) that could give you pretty good coverage over land anyway.

Just my opinion...

 

[Good2Golf]

...To my way of thinking, buying some form of armed/attack helicopter gives you most of the fire support functions you are likely to need in an expeditionary force, without worrying too much about ship/aircraft incompatibility.  Most of your air defence functions could be better performed by ensuring that your escort ships have a robust missile/radar combination (like a Standard missile with an APAR) that could give you pretty good coverage over land anyway.

Just my opinion...

I would like to formally announce that in no way did I influence, nor attempt to influence SeaKingTacco to make the preceding statement!


....although the AH-1Z is a fully-marinized, combat-capable, attack helicopter....just for fear anyone was wondering.  *whistles innocently*

Seriously though, SKT, very good point!  I think there needs to be a little more holistic assessment going into capabilities that clearly span multiple environments/services.

Cheers,
Duey

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Seriously though, SKT, very good point!  I think there needs to be a little more holistic assessment going into capabilities that clearly span multiple environments/services.

You know Duey, we spend ALOT of time in the military teaching the Estimate process.  So how come we spend so little time actually DOING estimates, particularly when it comes time to buying equipment?

 

[Good2Golf]

I know SKT... : ...I was thinking about hopping over to the MMEV and MGS threads but would probably dig myself in too deep there...same issue IMHO, folks are not adhering to the basic tenets of the military estimate...it seems that many systems, and it's not just the Army or the Air Force, are being procured because they were simply a follow-on from some other pre-existing systems.  I would like to see somebody start from the ground up and say...

"OK, here is the spectrum of operations we want to be able to operate in.  Here are the effects we want to be able to produce while conducting these operations.  Here are the tactics, techniques, procedures and equipment that we need to produce those effects."

This would get the material and the personnel issues sorted out to make things happen in a holistic manner that maximized effectiveness (notice I didn't say efficiency...that's often an MBA-ism that is not nearly as useful a metric as effectiveness...actually getting the ob done) of the generated forces.

2 more ¢

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Bert]

Another angle on JSF procurement is technology transfer and ownership.  Here is an arcticle that tells
of British issue with the possibility of American controlled software in the JSF.  A country buys the
aircraft but the US maintains control over the technology and ultimately whether the aircraft works or
not. 

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2152035/joint-strike-fighter

 

[Blue Max]

The more I read about the JSF trial and tribulations the more I think Canada should keep its money and either buy the F-15K or Euro-Fighter, IMHO.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16906677.1134288011.Q5vci8Oa9dUAAD0yqTM&modele=jdc_34

Tactical Aircraft: Recapitalization Goals Are Not Supported by F-22A and JSF Business Cases
Source: US Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Dated March 16, released March 17, 2006; 27 pages in PDF format

This document is the testimony before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the House Armed Services Committee of Michael Sullivan, Director of GAO for Acquisition and Sourcing Management.
Unsurprisingly, given past GAO reports, he paints a dismal picture if the Pentagon’s management of its F-22A and JSF fighter programs, which together represent about $320 billion in investments.

Both programs continue to be burdened with risk. The F-22A business case is unexecutable in part because of a 198 aircraft gap between the Air Force requirement and what DOD estimates it can afford. The JSF program, which has 90 percent of its investments still in the future, plans to concurrently test and produce aircraft thus weakening DOD’s business case and jeopardizing its recapitalization efforts. It plans to begin producing aircraft in 2007 with less than 1 percent of the flight test program completed.

Furthermore, Sullivan notes that DOD has not presented an investment strategy for tactical aircraft systems that measures needs, capability gaps, alternatives, and affordability, and that DOD’s 2006 QDR report, issued last month, did not present a detailed investment strategy for tactical aircraft systems that addressed needs, capability gaps, alternatives, and affordability.

Full text

 

[Lancaster]

I don’t know if Canada afford the Joint Strike fighter and how many fighters do we need? Australia is looking at spending about approximately $11.0 U.S. Billion for 100 fighters($110 U.S. million per fighter) and support structure(subcontracting work?) .If  Canada spends any where near Australia spends, then the  Joint Strike fighter will be potentially the “most costly Canadian military program ever”.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1597873&C=asiapac

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I just don't understand why we pre-pay for logistics and maintenance for 20-years for everything.  It seems like a huge waste of what little precious cash we actually have in-hand.


M.  ???

 

[SeaKingTacco]

We don't pre-pay (I wish we could...).  When you see a contract for 20 years of maintenance and support for $1 billion bucks (just to pluck a figure out of the air), it generally means that the CF will pay about $50 million/year (could be more or less, depending on the year) for the next 20 years.  Treasury Board wants the thru life costs accounted for upfront, is what I understand.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

We don't pre-pay (I wish we could...).  When you see a contract for 20 years of maintenance and support for $1 billion bucks (just to pluck a figure out of the air), it generally means that the CF will pay about $50 million/year (could be more or less, depending on the year) for the next 20 years.  Treasury Board wants the thru life costs accounted for upfront, is what I understand.

I like that much better....thanks for the correction SKT.


Matthew.   

 

[Blue Max]

I believe the JSF is supposed to be a "Cheap-Bomb-Truck". Problem is that there is nothing cheap or proven about it.

Jet fighter costs go skyward as price of rival nosedives
By Tom Allard
April 20, 2006
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/jet-fighter-costs-go-skyward-as-price-of-rival-nosedives/2006/04/19/1145344153546.html

THE F-22A Raptor strike jet - considered the best manned warplane yet - can be bought for about the same price that Australia will pay for the first batch of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, new figures show.

The data from the US Department of Defence highlights a disturbing trend for the Government: as the price of the F-22A declines, the cost of the Joint Strike Fighter is rapidly increasing.

"It's extremely concerning," said Dennis Jensen, a Coalition MP and a former defence scientist. "What I want to know is how does Defence get the numbers so wrong?"

As well as posing fresh questions over defence costings, the new figures will rekindle debate about whether Australia will get the right aircraft to maintain its long-held air superiority in the region.

The Joint Strike Fighter is Australia's preferred option to replace its FA-18 and F-111s, at a cost of $15 billion.

However, the Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Houston, has said the F-22A "will be the most outstanding fighter aircraft ever built" and possibly the "end of the line in manned fighters".

It can travel at supersonic speeds without afterburners, has unprecedented stealthiness and can launch missiles out of range of other fighter jets and air defence networks.

The problem has always been price. Australia's military has insisted it is at least three times as expensive as the Joint Strike Fighter and simply unaffordable.

But the latest US Department of Defence selected acquisition report, released earlier this month, shows that the F-22A can be bought for $US127 million ($172 million) each.

That is down 17 per cent on figures quoted two years ago.

In the meantime, the same report shows the total cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program has leapt 8 per cent in the past three months, with each plane costing about $US95 million ($128 million), after stripping out development costs.

Separate figures from the US Government Accountability Office, released in March, showed the cost of the Joint Strike Fighters would be much higher for those, like Australia, who are buying planes produced early in the manufacturing cycle. Australia wants 100 planes and will order its first batch in 2010 for delivery in 2012.

According to the US figures, the average cost of Joint Strike Fighters produced this year will be $US125 million. That cost gradually decreases over the 20-year life of the program.

Air Commodore John Harvey, director-general of the RAAF's new air capability project, said the cost of the variant Australia is buying would average about $100 million, including support. Even at the lower price, the F-22A would be "twice the price" of the Joint Strike Fighter, he said.

While Defence was keeping a "watching brief" on the changing price, "nothing in our analysis has fundamentally changed", he said.

But Dr Jensen said the new US figures should ring alarm bells, especially as the Joint Strike Fighter - still under development - was untested and costs were likely to blow out further.

Labor's defence spokesman, Robert McClelland, said: "The Government should really re-examine its decision on the JSF. The [F-22A] Raptor has known capability, while the JSF's has yet to be determined."

Canada is supposed to be getting the JSF to replace the F-18, but there is no proof that the JSF can take on the role of an interceptor, especially IMHO over the three oceans surounding Canada along with our great white north, on only ONE engine.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

I think every time there is a new weapons system made and just about to be sold you  will find various people come out of the woods and tell us all what is wrong with it. I always wonder are these people being paid by the other company who designed something else and not sold to the branch of the service requiring the new kit.
I remember when the CF 18 was about to enter service in Canada, the stories of how bad this aricraft was and how it was a lemon and the taxpayers should ask for the money back. ( yes there were some problems, experts here will remember most of them, cracked mounts is the one i remember most) , but that happens in all new systems, does not mean it is wrong design or whatever. The big 3 car makers have 100 000 of recalls every time you look around, does it make them bad auto makers?

I have no idea what  Canada needs for new fighter/ attack aircraft, not in my line of arm chair expert knowledge.  I do not know what any other country  needs, but I do know almost every country is now flying 70s designs, built in the 80s and flying in the 2006 time period. some aircraft out there are 60s designs, built in the 70s and flying today. Some designs in the 50s are still flying in active service. People have to remember it takes years to design and then years to build it.

Does Canada need the JSF, or the new Euro aircraft, or what model. Everyone has an opinion but me. I will tell you this much it be twice as much as off the shelf models because the government will demand Canadian Content etc.
I would like to see an airframe that  will have dual engines, stable of canadian airforce ideas, too much water to fly over here. comms equipment so they can chat with other airforces in the action area, weapons system to defend the pilot and take out the target. It will have to be a multi purpose aircraft, fighter bomber as we all know it will be hard to maintain 2 airframes and have enough of both to do anything with.

 

[joshi]

What people do not realize is that the JSF is a fifth generation plane which will replace frontline jets not only in Canada, but also the US, Britiain, Australia and many other allied countries such as Greece, Turkey, Japan to name a few. And this means that a lot of these jets will be produced in thousands as there are virtually no competitiors in the field disregarding the Eurofighter and the Rafale which is another thread. Since Canada is a major contributor in this program we will be positively affected and prices such as, $110 million per unit stated here is not true if one were to keep in mind that prices drop as more aircraft are porduced over time and the need of an aircraft such as the JSF in the future will be very high indeed. Also, the arguement of the JSF being a single engine airplane making it less effective in some way is also false, just look at the F-16 an all round multiurpose single engine fighter which is battle proven. Plus, planes such as Eurofighter and Rafale are still 4+ generation not providing an AESA radar and very minimal to nill stealth characteristics and the price tag for them is $70+ million for the most basic version. By getting the JSF we get the best multipurpose plane in the market and one that has a very good future.

 

[rz350]

I would say, from reading about what the CF uses its combat aircraft for in the past, that somthing like the F-15E would be a suiting plane. Now I now the F-15E is a dated plane (i.e. its based of a 70's airframe with 80's electronics) and that it would not be prudent to buy them. But Somthing similar, like the Eurofighter or even Sukhoi's new (currently in serial production with 8 in service) Su-34. (yes its russian, but its not exactly a old MiG-29A with turbojets instead of turbofans and vacume tube electronics) But somthing like that. twin engine, supersonic multi role with a big payload of ATG (which is mostly what seems to be employed in current operations) but that can still scrap pretty well in ATA (They can turn fast, ability to take modern missiles like AMRAAM or AA-12, good radar units ect) The JSF, will encompasing most of these, is IMHO, lacking in combat radius, and in ATG stores. It doesnt have a big payload (2000lbs...one Mk84)

Just the laymen opinion of a person in the recruiting process who happens to be a civil aviation student and a bit of a plane nut/nerd.

 

[aesop081]

What people do not realize is that the JSF is a fifth generation plane which will replace frontline jets not only in Canada, but also the US, Britiain, Australia and many other allied countries such as Greece, Turkey, Japan to name a few. And this means that a lot of these jets will be produced in thousands as there are virtually no competitiors in the field disregarding the Eurofighter and the Rafale which is another thread. Since Canada is a major contributor in this program we will be positively affected and prices such as, $110 million per unit stated here are totally baseless. Also, the arguement of the JSF being a single engine airplane making it less effective in some way is also false, just look at the F-16 an all round multiurpose single engine fighter which is battle proven. Plus, planes such as Eurofighter and Rafale are still 4+ generation not providing an AESA radar and very minimal to nill stealth characteristics and the price tag for them is $70+ million for the most basic version. By getting the JSF we get the best multipurpose plane in the market and one that can give us the edge when needed.

The F-16 is combat proven, that i cannot deny.  However, what YOU are not realizing is that the F-16 was rejected by canada and one of the reason was the fact that it is single-engined.  I would like for you to explain how you see the price tags for JSF as baseless.

Rafale and Typhoon :  The nation using these fighters have made a concious decision based on capabilities and cost when they puchased these types. European countries did not see the lack of stealth as that much of a detriment.  Do you have some magical insight that contradicts several of the major European air forces ?  Dont forget that several countries ( South Africa,Hungary and The Chez republic) have chosen the JAS 39 Grippen for their fighter needs ( if i have to remind you , Grippen is a single-engined fighter of the not that stealthy type).  Algeria is considering buying the raffale as well.  Stealth technology ( low observables byt its correct name BTW) is not the be-all - end - all of aviation.

lastly, when you say that if we get JSF, we will get the best multi-purpose plane on the market, i beleive you faith is rather hasty as the F-35 has yet to prove itself at anything. It is not yet lown operationaly by anyone, anywhere.  lets see what happens during full-scale developement, how it fares when it eventualy reaches IOC (initial operating capability) and finaly full scale squadron service.  This is an abitious program to produce a "jack of all trades" aircraft.  Remember the F-111 program ?  the navy abandoned it because , although it sounded good on paper, the naval version (F-111B) did not meet the navy's needs.

 

[joshi]

The reason why the European countries bought the Eurofighter is due to the reason that they were a part of EADS and had millions invested in the development process of the plane itself. Even BAe who had were a major player in that program ended up selling part of their share in EADs. Ok, given that the European countries have procured these planes, but have you looked at the numbers? Maybe its a stop gap measure, who knows? However I may not be right in that conclusion but then again I am no policy maker and have no great insights. As for the Gripen I do not see the point that you are trying to make as it is moot.
Plus you have mainly focused on the point of stealth. However, the point i was trying to get across is that technologically, meaning not only stealth, but also its AESA radar that the Eurofighter does not posses and still will not be available until Tranche III, the JSF is better. Also Canadian industry and private sector will be affected adversly if the Air Force suddenly decided to get the Eurofighter as we hav already invested millions in development. Also, keep in mind by staying with the JSF program we are gauranteed benefits as some of the parts of the plane itself will be developed and produced in Canada as under agreement.

 

[joshi]

When the CF-18 retires around 2017 it wil be replaced only by the JSF and that can be easily be guessed the policies that are in place today. There must be a huge political frameshift in foreign policy especially regarding our military that other choices can be made and even then will be affected by our neighbour to the south.   

 

[aesop081]

I'm not disagreeing with you on the politics.  I am disagreeing with you on your faith in JSF.  Saying the JSF is the best multi-purpose aircraft on the market is like saying that the 2010 Dodge ram is the best truck on the market ; nobody owns one, no one has ever used one.  It may look great on paper but that does not mean it will necessarily see operational service or be the best out there.  The US Army not that long ago cancelled what was touted as the "be-all-end-all" of hellicopters, the Comanche.


My point about the Grippen was that, although the JSF looks like a great fighter, it is not the solution for everyone.  Proof of that is that alot of countries are going by the way of Raffale, Typhoon, Grippen or Russin fighters.

When the CF-18 retires around 2017 it wil be replaced only by the JSF

Right........And back in 1990 we signed a contract to replace the sea kings with the EH-101.  Unless you have a political crystal ball, you have no idea whats going to happen when the CF-18 finaly gets replaced.  You are making assumptions that, although they sound good, ignore political realities

 

[joshi]

My point about the Grippen was that, although the JSF looks like a great fighter, it is not the solution for everyone.  Proof of that is that alot of countries are going by the way of Raffale, Typhoon, Grippen or Russin fighters.

Ofcourse the JSF is not the solution for everyone. The French are going with the Rafale beczause they bulit it, the Eurofighter is a joint European project and thus European customers. The Gripen appeals to smaller air forces who do not have the big bucks to join something such as the JSF project and as for the russian fighters we see countries like China and India buying them. Countries, the US in the past has not dealt with due to reasons irrelevant. Excluding this group everyone else, who invest heavily in their military and look at the West for their military supplies will be replacing their frontline jets and the JSF will be a heavy contender in such a race.
Plus, if one is talking of such a topic assumptions must be made and i assure you none of them were ignorant but rather kept in mind the current political point of view of such matters. Oh how I wish I had a crystal ball
And the reason the Commanche was cancelled was because the role that it was built for had other cheaper avenues(UAV's and Apache mix). But I doubt such faith will meet the JSF, UCAV's are still a long way coming atleast i hope so.

 

[aesop081]

Ofcourse the JSF is not the solution for everyone. The French are going with the Rafale beczause they bulit it, the Eurofighter is a joint European project and thus European customers. The Gripen appeals to smaller air forces who do not have the big bucks to join something such as the JSF project and as for the russian fighters we see countries like China and India buying them. Countries, the US in the past has not dealt with due to reasons irrelevant. Excluding this group everyone else, who invest heavily in their military and look at the West for their military supplies will be replacing their frontline jets and the JSF will be a heavy contender in such a race.
Plus, if one is talking of such a topic assumptions must be made and i assure you none of them were ignorant but rather kept in mind the current political point of view of such matters. Oh how I wish I had a crystal ball
And the reason the Commanche was cancelled was because the role that it was built for had other cheaper avenues(UAV's and Apache mix). But I doubt such faith will meet the JSF, UCAV's are still a long way coming atleast i hope so.

I am aware fo the multitude of reason why Comanch was cancelled i was in the US when the plans for Army aviation rationalization were anounced.  My point was tht the US isnt afraid of cancelling large projects in which vast sums of money and effort have been spent.  With the current political climate in Washignton about JSF and its cost, the future of JSF is uncertain.  UCAVs are not that far off.