F-35 news roundup

[sweier]

No wonder the Australian bought 24 Super Hornet and are finishing the contract to get 24 more Growler version. They must learn their lesson from the F-111 that no matter how wonderful an airplane is, it is of limited value if you cannot afford to keep it flying.

Is it the same reason (reliability) that USN is asking for 22 more Growler?

I wouldn't take too much notice of anything you see on the ABC. Their remit is to find fault in anything Defence says or does unless the Greens approve it first (and that won't happen until every whale in the sea is receiving an Australian government pension)

Also, is it not 12 Growlers being bought? The original 24 Super Hornets comprise 12 bog standard, and 12 wired for conversion, but 12 purpose built Growlers are being bought so that all 24 F-18F can remain dedicated to their current role.

Shane

[TaiidanTomcat]

(and that won't happen until every whale in the sea is receiving an Australian government pension)

I don't care who you are -- thats funny

[Check Six]

[Diamondback Six]

The Game of Thrones is a sport for sociopaths, just that some are more benign than others.

Let's face it, with the stakes of losing, would anybody really WANT Mother Theresa being their representative in that environment?

[GreyGhost]

-Gregg

[Alvis 3.1]

Canadians discontinued the penny. :shoot:/>/>/>

How does one make a "polite" shark mouth on an A-10 anyway? :rofl:/>/>/>

Challenge accepted!

[Check Six]

Challenge accepted!

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

Canada is not going to buy the A-10's from USAF.

IMO and it's just that, Canada will short list to going with F-35 as originally thought, or F-18E Super Hornet (we likely won't go with the F model as this saves our cheap a** govt. regardless of party from employing and training a WSO in the back seat) is going to be considered along with Rafale. Typhoon will probably have too few spin offs and Gripen though a beaut and super little jet is another single engine bird. For single engine it's going to be F-35 only and for twin engines either F-18E or Rafale

If Canada did go with Super Hornet I'd think supplying say 60-65 F-18E with oh maybe 12-15 EF-18G Growlers would be wise. ECM will always be important to any future battle. Not just for RCAF but with allies in any future conflict. Stealth is sold as being almost forever wonderful, but it's not a god send nor will it be too long before it's mostly defeated by future or even rather current technology. Jammers and SEAD equipped aircraft will always be needed and as ECM and SEAD technology improves these things can be carried and used by highly trained ECM, SEAD flight crews.

As to Rafale, well arguably the most beautiful air combat plane, it is battle proven. But how this little Frenchy wonder will fit in with RCAF is a ???

I guess in hopefully short enough time the DnD Canada makes its choice as our able but aging CF-18 Fleet is entering its twilight years.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Les / Creative Edge Photo

[-Neu-]

Canada is not going to buy the A-10's from USAF.

IMO and it's just that, Canada will short list to going with F-35 as originally thought, or F-18E Super Hornet (we likely won't go with the F model as this saves our cheap a** govt. regardless of party from employing and training a WSO in the back seat) is going to be considered along with Rafale. Typhoon will probably have too few spin offs and Gripen though a beaut and super little jet is another single engine bird. For single engine it's going to be F-35 only and for twin engines either F-18E or Rafale

If Canada did go with Super Hornet I'd think supplying say 60-65 F-18E with oh maybe 12-15 EF-18G Growlers would be wise. ECM will always be important to any future battle. Not just for RCAF but with allies in any future conflict. Stealth is sold as being almost forever wonderful, but it's not a god send nor will it be too long before it's mostly defeated by future or even rather current technology. Jammers and SEAD equipped aircraft will always be needed and as ECM and SEAD technology improves these things can be carried and used by highly trained ECM, SEAD flight crews.

Your 60~65 F/A-18Es+12 Growlers would cost us somewhere between 12 to 13 billion dollars in acquisitons. For the same cost as our F-35 acquisition (9.0 billion) we can only get 55 F/A-18Es.

That's the reality about the Super Hornet... its not that cheap at all.

[Kei Lau]

Your 60~65 F/A-18Es+12 Growlers would cost us somewhere between 12 to 13 billion dollars in acquisitons. For the same cost as our F-35 acquisition (9.0 billion) we can only get 55 F/A-18Es.

That's the reality about the Super Hornet... its not that cheap at all.

The $9B acquisition cost for 65 F-35 had been called a myth and the plan had been official scraped.

The Globe and Mail article on "Ottawa officially scraps F-35 purchase as audit pegs costs at $45-bill".

But do not count the F-35 out yet. Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35.

The Growler is designed for a different mission of electronic attack, replacing the EA-6B Prowler. The USAF has no such fighter since the retirement of EF-111 20 some years ago and currently relies on Navy to provide EA in ground attack missions. It is not a surprise that a Growler can cost more than a F-35A due to all the electronic weapons hanging under its fuselage and wings. Australia is the only military other than USN to have the Growler (soon). Canada may follow the lead of Australia in getting the Growler whether they decide on F-35 or the SH. (Both have vast territory to defend.) But Canada may also continue to depend on US to provide air refueling tanker and EA support. They have the NATO treaty. That's what a friend is for.

[11bee]

The Growler is designed for a different mission of electronic attack, replacing the EA-6B Prowler. The USAF has no such fighter since the retirement of EF-111 20 some years ago and currently relies on Navy to provide EA in ground attack missions.

Are Growler units tasked to support USAF missions (like certain EA-6B units where) or strictly tasked for USN / USMC support?

At one time, I believe that USAF personnel were flying in Prowler squadrons. Is this still the case with the Growler (I really hate that name BTW)?

[TaiidanTomcat]

Good post, BTW .

Not really, no.

Challenge accepted!

That is truly epic.

Stealth is sold as being almost forever wonderful, but it's not a god send nor will it be too long before it's mostly defeated by future or even rather current technology. Jammers and SEAD equipped aircraft will always be needed and as ECM and SEAD technology improves these things can be carried and used by highly trained ECM, SEAD flight crews.

you do realize that the F-35 is equipped with a powerful EW suite and a host of other avionics and sensors that make it more than just an LO platform? What you just said is based solely on opinion and a narrow world view backed by your ignorance of the subject at hand, or in other words "par for the course"

I would like a detailed examination of your logic (not politics, but something actually scientifically solid) on how ECM will be impossible to defeat in the future but stealth will be vulnerable.

You see we have "been there done that" with ECM/SEAD and guess what the result was? A need for Stealth aircraft. It was huge news when the first stealth aircraft was shot down, ECM and SEAD airplanes being lost has been happening since Vietnam, and it was a helluva lot more than one to the point that its not even worthy of headlines.

Not to mention the increased cost of developing and fielding improved ECM pods and equipment throughout the years.

The $9B acquisition cost for 65 F-35 had been called a myth and the plan had been official scraped.

For the Record the 9 billion dollar cost was confirmed by independant accounting firm KPMG, after being commissioned by the Canadian government to examine and confirm costs. Anyone who calls it a "myth" is ill-informed to say the least and I am curious where you heard that.

The Globe and Mail article on "Ottawa officially scraps F-35 purchase as audit pegs costs at $45-bill".

It hasn't been scrapped, they "hit the reset button" what that means like a lot of popular political phrases is up to you. But Canada is still in the JSF program and is still paying its dues to remain so. No competition has been announced. and it seems that decisions are be further postponed until after an election.

If KPMG where to do a similar audit on the JSFs competitors it would find higher costs for less capability. Even the "cheap" Gripen NG would mean buying more aircraft, you aren't going to get away with 65 Gripen NGs.

Edited March 30, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[Check Six]

Not really, no.

O.K.

You want to expand on you response?

[SERNAK]

Challenge accepted!

Let me just say...........

[Grey Ghost 531]

Why? If we're going to be so @$$-tronomically dumb as to get rid of the A-10 force, it would be of far better use in Polish or Baltic States hands, since they're going to be the next ones staring down the muzzles of Vlad the Needs Impaling's T-90s...

They should give them to the Marines. I know they're not carrier capable, but lately, the Marines seem to be stuck on permanent land bases most of the time.

[Tony Stark]

They should give them to the Marines.

Why?

[-Neu-]

The $9B acquisition cost for 65 F-35 had been called a myth and the plan had been official scraped.

The Globe and Mail article on "Ottawa officially scraps F-35 purchase as audit pegs costs at $45-bill".

No, $9 billion is still the acquisition cost (ie the purchase cost of the F-35 and F/A-18E), as the December 2013 update makes clear, and was verified by an earlier KPMG audit:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2013.page#toc5a

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/ngfc-cng/irlc-eiccv/irlc-eiccv01-eng.asp#ToC1

As for the number of F/A-18Es they could buy at 9 billion, DND estimated they could only get 55. Since 2011 the costs of purchasing F/A-18Es has increased due to lowered production and DMS issues, which means we can buy even less of them now than before. $45 Billion is the full lifecycle cost over 30+ years. The real difference between what DND reported before 2012 was a 20 year lifespan (the time for amortization), and the Audit called for a 30 year lifecycle (full expected life). The reality is that the change makes very little difference for the program of how much Canada will pay on a year to year basis, which is really the most important consideration. The reality is that changing the lifecycle cost to 30+ years significantly disadvantages the F/A-18E, because the USN will remove their aircraft from service after Canada will only have had their aircraft in service for 15 years (2030~2035), meaning after that point we're on the hook for ALL of the upgrades and maintenence work (ie we can't rely on US assistance if there is a problem with the aircraft.) For an aircraft that was already an aging capability at the time we purchased it, that would make it extremely expensive and risky proposition for the RCAF.

But do not count the F-35 out yet. Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35.

You're basically citing the worst quality news source in Canada on this issue: no independent verification at all, just complete spin on the part of reporters. No news source in Canada really has any experience in this at all, instead they are all out to produce print. Actually, its pretty apparent that the independent fighter secretariat has already recommended that the F-35 is the lowest cost, best performing option. If they want to delay that decision for a year, then it basically means the Super Hornet becomes unavailable because it will go out of production, which then means all the other options are significantly more expensive, and/or not capable enough for what the RCAF requires.

The Growler is designed for a different mission of electronic attack, replacing the EA-6B Prowler. The USAF has no such fighter since the retirement of EF-111 20 some years ago and currently relies on Navy to provide EA in ground attack missions. It is not a surprise that a Growler can cost more than a F-35A due to all the electronic weapons hanging under its fuselage and wings. Australia is the only military other than USN to have the Growler (soon). Canada may follow the lead of Australia in getting the Growler whether they decide on F-35 or the SH. (Both have vast territory to defend.) But Canada may also continue to depend on US to provide air refueling tanker and EA support. They have the NATO treaty. That's what a friend is for. :thumbsup:/>

Canada's not going to follow the Aussies lead on Growlers... its preposterous to consider that. Do you really think the Government is going to approve the most expensive option when they are getting battered over the cost of the least expensive option F-35? And continuing to go with p&D retains the complicated arrangement that we currently have with the USAF over refuelling, as we've been unable in the past to run missions because there is no USAF tanker support for our CF-18.

As a final point, we have a NORAD treaty, which is significantly more expansive than the North Atlantic Treaty offers.

[Gregg B]

FWIW, my eye doctor's son is the only known, at this writing, F-22 AND F-35 pilot in the world. Lt. Col Burke was seconded to the USAF to fly the F-22 and is now the first CO of VMFAT-501, the Marines first F-35B squadron. ;)/>

Marine Corps Celebrates One-Year F-35B Flying Anniversary at Eglin Air Force Base

Marines Fly First F-35 STOVL Mission at Eglin

[TaiidanTomcat]

Why?

Agreed. The Marines really have never been interested in the A-10, And that gap has only grown with time as all the capabilities the USMC says they need that are inherent on the F-35B (STOVL, EW, single aircraft necking down) are not inherent or obvious in the A-10. In other words its nothing that the USMC wants or values now or for the future and they weren't interested when they would have had some value in the past. It makes as much sense as offering them to the US navy ( On that note, I look forward to the next Canadian journo yarn about the Canadian Navy buying A-10s)

Edited March 30, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

They work together and complement each other. It's not a which is better, rather how can we use them both to deliver a strike package. A compass call can't do what a f-35 can and a f-35 can't do what a compass call does, you use them both.

Indeed and I'm not arguing that, its more the obsolescence assertion made earlier.

[fulcrum1]

They should give them to the Marines. I know they're not carrier capable, but lately, the Marines seem to be stuck on permanent land bases most of the time.

Marines need something they can deploy fast and the A-10 isn't an expeditionary platform. It would force them to rewrite how they play ball

[Diamondback Six]

Agreed. The Marines really have never been interested in the A-10, And that gap has only grown with time as all the capabilities the USMC says they need that are inherent on the F-35B (STOVL, EW, single aircraft necking down) are not inherent or obvious in the A-10. In other words its nothing that the USMC wants or values now or for the future and they weren't interested when they would have had some value in the past. It makes as much sense as offering them to the US navy ( On that note, I look forward to the next Canadian journo yarn about the Canadian Navy buying A-10s)

Hence my point--when Vlad the KGB Scumbag Who Needs His Throat Crapped Down Until Asphyxiation orders the Red Army to continue West, Poland and the Baltics are gonna NEED all the help they can get. And since I don't think the American people really have it IN us to fight another Major Regional Conflict, I find it difficult to see OUR boots on the ground until Russian jackboots march on Berlin by which time it'll be too late. If we're going to DISarm, we might as well transfer it to ARM the people who need it most and get both return on investment AND some PR goodwill, right?

[Check Six]

Hence my point--when Vlad the KGB Scumbag Who Needs His Throat Crapped Down Until Asphyxiation orders the Red Army to continue West, Poland and the Baltics are gonna NEED all the help they can get. And since I don't think the American people really have it IN us to fight another Major Regional Conflict, I find it difficult to see OUR boots on the ground until Russian jackboots march on Berlin by which time it'll be too late. If we're going to DISarm, we might as well transfer it to ARM the people who need it most and get both return on investment AND some PR goodwill, right?

If the Russian Bear makes a move on Western Europe I have a feeling the U.S. will gear up for a major conflict.

A build up that would make ODS look like a weekend training exercise.

After all; That's what the whole point/purpose of what N.A.T.O. was for: To stop/stall the sickle and hammer march.

[Kei Lau]

No, $9 billion is still the acquisition cost (ie the purchase cost of the F-35 and F/A-18E), as the December 2013 update makes clear, and was verified by an earlier KPMG audit:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/next-gen-fighter-annual-update-2013.page#toc5a

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/reports-rapports/ngfc-cng/irlc-eiccv/irlc-eiccv01-eng.asp#ToC1

I am totally confused. If the Canadian government had confirmed the $9B 2010 cost, why did they anounced a "reset" (which the Global & Mail called the official scrape) of the F-35 program?

If the F-35 program is cheaper than anything else on the plate, why are they considering the other offers? No one can argue that F-35 is the most capable platform on paper, if not the cheapest platform. And the Canadian DND also "proved" that the F-35 is the cheapest, what is holding up the decision?

[Diamondback Six]

CS, industry and the Pentagon aren't my worry... it's whether the TV-addled, self-absorbed Nintendorks of my generation and younger have it in them to answer the call. I mean, the 9/11 Generation was my people and I'm proud of how those of my generation who participated did there (*hand salute*, TT), but... that's still a lot of my generation and later that stayed home fat dumb & happy, and after all this time in combat ops with CENTCOM it's taking a psychological toll on those still in.