F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[geo]

The stealthy F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th-generation fighter designed to replace aging AV-8B Harriers, A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18 Hornets and United Kingdom Harrier GR.7s and Sea Harriers.

... the million dollar question will be... what is the unit price of one of those babies?

 

[peaches]

Everything I have read so far puts it between $40 - 60 million US.  I am guessing the VTOL types would be more expensive.  We would most likely purchase the F35A models, the UASF version.  My concern as an Air Defence officer is their range and how well they would operate in the high artic, lots of empty space between airports there.....

 

[Babbling Brooks]

Lockheed Martin has commissioned a number of artist's concepts of the F-35 Lightning II's in various national paint schemes and settings.  The Canadian painting, by Robert Lundquist of British Columbia, can be viewed here:

http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/canada-and-f-35-non-story.html

There's some debate in the comments as to the wisdom of investing in the F-35, so feel free to weigh in - here or there.

 

[Mike Baker]

Nice! Thanks for posting that up.

 

[geo]

nice picture.... are those the only two we will be able to afford? 

 

[Astrodog]

Nice painting, though I wish they had used our current CF-18 scheme as opposed to the US F-16 scheme... also missing a dummy canopy!!

 

[Spencer100]

Nice painting, though I wish they had used our current CF-18 scheme as opposed to the US F-16 scheme... also missing a dummy canopy!!

Would we use the dunny canopy paint scheme on new fighters?  Or would we something new? 

Question:  Has the dummy canopy been shown to work in dog fights? 

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"If" the JSF is problematic in the Arctic, what would the US use in Alsaka?

 

[Spencer100]

"If" the JSF is problematic in the Arctic, what would the US use in Alsaka?

F-22 Raptor,  The US is going to station the raptor up North.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123024586

 

[Mike Baker]

"If" the JSF is problematic in the Arctic, what would the US use in Alaska?

F-22 Raptor,  The US is going to station the raptor up North.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123024586

Hmm, I wonder what we would use in the Arctic?

 

[Spencer100]

Hmm, I wonder what we would use in the Arctic?

I would guess we would use what we have.  It the monent it looks like we are going to get the Lightening II.  But anything could happen. 

 

[Babbling Brooks]

Anything could happen at this point, you're right.

It's easy to forget that at this point, the gov't looks at the money invested in the F-35 program as the price of admission into the defence contract bonanza that this project has spawned.  For a $150M investment so far, Cdn firms have won approx $500M in contracts - plus we're able to get in on the ground floor if we want to order some of the end-product when it becomes available.

This is about industrial benefits at this point, not about defence procurement, IMO.

 

[a_majoor]

Although it probably won't happen, an hypothetical FB-35 (a stretched airframe like the hypothetical FB-22 Raptor) would probably be much closer to what we actually "need" in terms of range, as well as the utility of having a much larger potential payload (not just bombs and missiles; think EF-35 or RF-35....)

Given the size of the program and the potential user base, there are several potential customers who could use something along these lines; I'm a bit surprised this idea hasn't surfaced before.

 

[peaches]

As an Air Defence officer I think the best fighter to replace our F18 fleet would be the F22.  It has the range, speed, weapons capability, ISAR/data link capability we need, but it's price tag is too much.  The F35A fighter variant is most likey what we'll get.  The number I have heard is 80, too few.

Our fighter force has two main functions, homeland air defence with NORAD and deployed operations to support the CF/NATO.  As it stands now we can do both missions with 80 jets, but not at the same time.  The number of fighters we need (IMHO) to effectively do the air defence and expeditionary job concurrently starts at about 120+.  They also need to be properly kitted out, JDAM,JSOW etc for AG ops and up to date AA missiles.  Then you need to include the willingness to use them which is currently lacking.

You can have 5 million fighters, if they are not kitted out properly and not used, what good are they?????

 

[cameron]

Babbling Brooks has a point but I certainly hope that Canada purchases these planes.

 

[thunderchild]

The JSF is listed as $88 million (US) but that is for a LRIP of 6 aircraft.having some B model JSF would be useful but I don't know about servicing requirements.  I think there are better options for Canada, maybe a 2 aircraft type fighter fleet might be a better approach.
my choices would be a F/A-18E/f Block 3 for airdefence and something smaller for foreign deployment.  opinions.....?

 

[DevoBab]

I'm certainly no expert, but having F/A-18E/f for air defence makes a lot of sense and would be a smart transition from what we fly now. As far as sending a different type overseas, what about the Gripen? I know there aren't a lot in service in comparison to some aircraft, but from what I've read they are a decent price, fairly small, developed to land on public roads etc. It seems to be perfect for expeditionary purposes.

 

[belka]

The JSF is listed as $88 million (US) but that is for a LRIP of 6 aircraft.having some B model JSF would be useful but I don't know about servicing requirements.  I think there are better options for Canada, maybe a 2 aircraft type fighter fleet might be a better approach.
my choices would be a F/A-18E/f Block 3 for airdefence and something smaller for foreign deployment.  opinions.....?

We have a hard time as-is maintaining one fleet of fighters, nevermind finding people to maintain and fly two types. B model JSF's would be kinda pointless since we have no aircraft carriers, and we aren't exactly in need of VTOL fighters right now. IMO, there is no point in buying 4th gen fighters in the E/F model F-18's, we would be right back where we started in 5-10 years. The Superbugs are also mabye 15-20% compatible with the C/D models, so retraining would be required anyways. As far as deployments, the fighters aren't going anywhere. The ramp in Afghanistan is full and the cost to deploy 6 fighters overseas is immense.

 

[SupersonicMax]

IMO, there is no point in buying 4th gen fighters in the E/F model F-18's, we would be right back where we started in 5-10 years.

How about a fraction of the cost of what the JSF will cost (read, buy MORE)?  Why do we need a "5th" generation fighter again?  Why not a 4.5th generation?  Can we afford everything that goes with that 5th generation fighter to make it a real 5th generation fighters (EW, Weapons, etc). What about having a 2nd engine?  I don't care what YOU or the engineer that designed the engine think about 1 or 2 engines, in the end, you are not the one that's going to fly it over Northern Canada in the dead of the Winter.  And I don't care how you say that this engine is supposed to be extra-reliable.  Isn't that why we chose the Hornet over the Viper in the first place?

The Superbugs are also mabye 15-20% compatible with the C/D models, so retraining would be required anyways. 

Yup, however, seeing something similar, flying with the same stick, the same throttle, DDIs in the same position, similar ergonomy, same or similar HUD information, similar way of handling, generally, very similar (but not identical) systems may seem stupid to you, but it's all things that, IMO, would make the transition smoother.  Obviously we're going to need training for anything we decide to do.  Gosh, training is required for ANYTHING we add onto the airplane (going onto the R2, yes they needed retraining).

If you don't believe me that having a totally different ergonomic makes a huge difference, and that as professional we should be able to adapt (we should be but we're all human, right?) go read the accident report of Hawk 155202.  While it's not a cause of the accident, it certainly worth mentionning what happened.  Old habbits are hard to break, even after hours and hours of training.  When things go wrong, you revert to what you know best.  I can't talk for everyone, but as soon as I put that helmet on, I become about 10 times more retarded that I was already on the ground.  Suddently, adding 12 to 29 becomes quite the challenge...

To sum up, the Super Hornet, being much cheaper, an excellent platform, something similar to what we already have and having 2 engines,  would make IMHO a GREAT replacement!

 

[belka]

How about a fraction of the cost of what the JSF will cost (read, buy MORE)?  Why do we need a "5th" generation fighter again?  Why not a 4.5th generation? 

Hell, why do we need fighters at all? The Hawks can take out a Russian bear and an Airliner just as well as the 82 Hornet can. A Superbug will last you until mabye 2030, while the JSF will be around until 2050.

What about having a 2nd engine?  I don't care what YOU or the engineer that designed the engine think about 1 or 2 engines, in the end, you are not the one that's going to fly it over Northern Canada in the dead of the Winter.  And I don't care how you say that this engine is supposed to be extra-reliable.  Isn't that why we chose the Hornet over the Viper in the first place?

The government must surely know that the JSF has only one engine, otherwise why would they still be interested? Engines are the most reliable part of a fighter, they have to be. Even now with the current Hornets, they almost never come back U/S and it's an extremely rare occurrence that there is a inflight emergency due to engine problems. If I was a pilot, I'd be more concerned with the flight control system.

To sum up, the Super Hornet, being much cheaper, an excellent platform, something similar to what we already have and having 2 engines,  would make IMHO a GREAT replacement.

While that might be the case, I don't think that it purchasing a relatively outdated fighter is the right choice, just for the fact that it has two engines. Personally, I don't think the JSF is the right choice for Canada, but it looks to be the ONLY choice.