Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But there is no comparison. This isn't remotely like the V-22. ALGS is far more than a replacement for past tech manuals. You cannot fly the jet unless the system is up and running, or twenty LM engineers give you a workaround. You really can't turn the jet on if it is misbehaving. The F-22 is the only remotely comparable system, and it wasn't as gooned up.

Blow it off as douchebaggery or POGO being POGO, it doesn't change this is the program's biggest issue right now, more than developing block 3 software for mission systems. And IOC is a joke based on the results of OT1.

Yes the jet is safer, marines aren't dying, got it. But it is also a huge mess on the ALGS side that has a long way to go for a system as essential as the engine or left wing for flying and fighting.

Edited by MarkW
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like BA agrees. F-15C with "2040C" upgrade package. AESA radar, 16 AMRAAMs, CFT's, IRST, Talon Hate and upgraded EW system. Proposed to be a partner to the F-22. Pretty neat upgrade, although I can't see where the AF will get the money from if they want their new trainer, new bomber and wings of F-35, all in the same time frame. Maybe the ANG might be interested since it looks like they will be the primary F-15C operator shortly (if not already).

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-doubles-f-15c-missile-load-in-2040c-eagle-u-416766/

They need to mount some more AMRAAMs over the top of the wing like the RAF Jaguars had (albeit they used AIM-9s). Looks cooler, & they could add 4 (or 8) additional pockets.

Edited by Alan in Yorktown
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like BA agrees. F-15C with "2040C" upgrade package. AESA radar, 16 AMRAAMs, CFT's, IRST, Talon Hate and upgraded EW system. Proposed to be a partner to the F-22. Pretty neat upgrade, although I can't see where the AF will get the money from if they want their new trainer, new bomber and wings of F-35, all in the same time frame. Maybe the ANG might be interested since it looks like they will be the primary F-15C operator shortly (if not already).

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-doubles-f-15c-missile-load-in-2040c-eagle-u-416766/

They need to mount some more AMRAAMs over the top of the wing like the RAF Jaguars had (albeit those were AIM-9s). Looks cooler, & they could add 4 (or 8) additional rockets.

Edited by Alan in Yorktown
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Mark, good to see what appears to be a "fair and balanced" discussion on this issue.

In other news -

Bogdan states that the F-35 is the finest fighter on the planet. Is today, will be tomorrow, will still be in 2145. I love this guy. He's got a bright future in sales with LM when he finally retires from the AF.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-officials-f-35-will-outmatch-any-aircraft-in-dev-417067/

Norway gets it first jet.

http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2015/09/lockheed-martin-unveils-norways-first-f-35-22-09

Surprised that they are shutting down their one base above the arctic circle, especially with all the activity from Russia of late.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

For Canada it really comes down to who wins the election next month. Right now its a three way tie.

So either we get......Party 1. The F-35

Party 2. who knows?

Party 3. Something bought on cost and not capability. Remember the Sea King replacement we were supposed to get 25 years ago and still do not have? That party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I read, Canada can no longer afford the F-35 ...

-Gregg

Canada can afford the F-35 if that is the fighter we go with. Be it 65 as originally thought of us buying or more or less. The game of politics and such is the big stick in the mud right now. But obviously once the politics shake off, that then between the Prime Minister (whom ever it may be after Oct. 19), his then defence minister, industry minister, DnD and Industry Canada bureaucracies lets hope a proper process to determine if F-35 or what ever aircraft is chosen is the best all around choice for the RCAF's needs. We shall see.

Edited by Gordon Shumway
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like us, it's who is in office next which will determine quite a bit of what certain programs will look like. Waiting game...

I don't think that's the case here in the US. Unless Bernie S. pulls off a miracle, I think the F-35 is good to go regardless of who makes it into office.

Maybe a slight reduction in numbers but the program is way to far along to do anything drastic. Especially since (despite that cool picture of an F-15 with wall to wall AMRAAMs) we don't have any viable alternatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's the case here in the US. Unless Bernie S. pulls off a miracle, I think the F-35 is good to go regardless of who makes it into office.

Maybe a slight reduction in numbers but the program is way to far along to do anything drastic. Especially since (despite that cool picture of an F-15 with wall to wall AMRAAMs) we don't have any viable alternatives.

After seeing what happened a couple years ago when everything was on the table I don't share your confidence. However, I agree with you and don't think the program will get axe I do think every year will be a battle on numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Gordon, maybe you should run for PM ...

alfdebate.png

-Gregg

LOL :D

I would just like the government, DnD and Industry Canada to ask for my opinion on whether Canada should go with F-35 or what other choices, but they have yet to call me, email me, or knock on my door to ask me. I also think and I'm sure that they won't ask of such from me. :D

I will say this, back in the mid 70's to early 80's I as a kid followed the NFA for Canada's then next fighter jet and did so very closely on the competitors. I soaked up as much info as I could and I will say this, I predicted that Canada was going to buy the F/A-18 Hornet. I remember like it was yesterday when I heard while listening to the radio a news cast note that the then government had selected the F/A-18. I as a kid felt like I was clairvoyant. :banana::nanner:

Link to post
Share on other sites

For Canada it really comes down to who wins the election next month. Right now its a three way tie.

So either we get......Party 1. The F-35

Party 2. who knows?

Party 3. Something bought on cost and not capability. Remember the Sea King replacement we were supposed to get 25 years ago and still do not have? That party.

I'm glad this is still rememberedthis is looking like eh-101 part deux. Don't know whether to laugh or cry

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is this, will we get the F35 before our cf18 wear out? Politics here usually makes these dnd decisions take longer that any one else it seems to me, how much timw has passed since the issue came up we must check the competition out before we actually make a purchase? Because the dnd didn't go through propper acquisition procedures, bythe time they actually make a full commitment the new a/c won't be delivered until after the airframes expire on the hornets. Just look at the rest of our aging airforce fleet, which some should been replaced 20 years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is this, will we get the F35 before our cf18 wear out? Politics here usually makes these dnd decisions take longer that any one else it seems to me, how much timw has passed since the issue came up we must check the competition out before we actually make a purchase? Because the dnd didn't go through propper acquisition procedures, bythe time they actually make a full commitment the new a/c won't be delivered until after the airframes expire on the hornets. Just look at the rest of our aging airforce fleet, which some should been replaced 20 years ago.

Here are the cliffs notes on Canada and the CF-18 replacement, to the best of my knowledge (before proceeding, please understand I am not Canadian, have barely a clue how your system works, and am completely apolitical on this one, save for the F-35. I also don't want to see this thread shut down so names will be withheld to protect the eventually proven guilty):

CF-18 upgrade

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/extending-cf-18-lifespan-to-cost-about-400-million-report-1.2869532

**There are 3 current trends regarding the F-35 and the election from what I can tell

one wants to withdraw from the F-35 and bar it completely in the future.

One wants to have a competition and have the F-35 included

One wants to stay the course with the F-35 currently

**The trouble with a competition-- it looks like a great idea on paper,but... (From a Canadian in the know)

the MH Program that resulted in the CH-148 required 130 people, with minimal classified elements for about three years. The Next Generation competition would require much more than that due to the vast difference in complexity and classification... I'd say 250 at least for four to five years, but lets just say 200 for three.

I'll give a nice round salary figure: $100,000 dollars per worker, per year. In reality most of the people are probably Captains or above, so their compensation would be more, perhaps 120,000+, since they are mostly technical experts. With these conservative numbers its $20 million a year, just for the salaries of people. That doesn't include technical costs, like if we had a fly-off. And before you say those salaries are sunk costs, that's not the case. The section that would have to run that completion currently has less than 200 people: they would need to second people across from government to make this happen... and that means you're paying for their replacements. So $50 million is probably a best case scenario; this completion could cost as much as $100 million before its all said and done.

So I'll use the F-35's numbers here, though the Super Hornet will cost more. The actual number that an manufacturer must cover for the acquisition phase ITBs is $6.1 Billion dollars, because the policy only covers what they sell us directly from the United States.

Now the reality of ITBs is that most of the contracts are not direct contracts. The suppliers for an aircraft like the Hornet are long since set and it would increase the cost of manufacturing it to insert a Canadian supplier for a temporary period. So most of the ITBs are called indirect: they are given to other industries to meet the manufacturers' legal requirements.

Now this is the problem with ITBs: they must be fulfilled within a few years of the contract's conclusion. When you have that much money being passed through an industry, you get market distortionary effects. Basically an industry gets tens of millions of dollars of artificial investment, which then dries up after the ITB obligation is fulfilled. The market isn't really there, so in many cases the investment is lost.

The F-35's project is different. Basically there are no ITBs or time sensitive elements. National suppliers compete for subcontracts on the JSF program, that are used on all aircraft produced (other than version sensitive components).All of the contracts are won by Canadian industry based on their economic merits, that will provide Canadian suppliers with jobs for decades. They are also able to operate in a very high tech environment, which futures' their competitiveness , which is fundamentally superior than regular ITBs.

Canada has already won and fulfilled 600 million dollars of contracts in the fighter's development phase (that's 20% more than the 450 million we invested). Now with the follow through guarantee in the MOU, we have been expected to win over $10 billion dollars. However before we expected to win much more: in 2011 Industry Canada expected to win over $12 billion dollars. The difference is that many of the new subcomponent competitions that Canada was likely to win, we were quietly excluded from because of this turmoil. Still, that's $3billion dollars MORE than what we could expect from a regular ITB setup like that we would expect from Boeing or Dassault.

This system is so much more attractive that one of the main reasons why Japan revised their defence export laws was so they would not miss the ability to participate in another JSF like program. There is no way that the other manufacturers would be able to meet this, so their business development people obsfucate with things like "technology transfer" and "meeting our IRB commitments, which is nowhere near as attractive as the JSF production scheme.

Moreover the Idea of a competition will only add at least another three years to the selection process. You'd need to draft up an RFP (that's a year), wait for an industry response and perhaps a down select (a year) then a final year. That might be useful if there was uncertainty at all. But there isn't. By the time our competition is finished, only the F-35 the Gripen and the Rafale will still be in production. Moreover twice now, the RCAF/the Government has run an evaluation: The NGFC project office 2006~2012 and then NFPS in 2014~2015. They basically have both come back and stated go with the F-35 through the MOU.

Industry is even worse off. There was a point in time where it was possible that Canada would have received 200% of the value in offsets, particularly given the performance of our aviation industry. Because we've delayed, a number of contracts we've been excluded from and we are probably at 100~120% now, and trending downwards. Its still better than any other option, but a loss opportunity.

The reality is that In Canada they do have a history of making really bad procurement decision based on risk aversion or cost avoidance. The delay in obtaining the Upholders, The Sea King replacement program, delaying on the CF-101/104 replacement until 1980, among others. This has become another one in that vein. Is there risks? of course. But at a certain point you need to make a decision, and then make it work.

read more about it here:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/richard-shimooka-stick-with-the-f-35

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/richard-shimooka-the-f-35-is-still-our-best-bet

**So a competition would cost money, take 3 years (At a minimum) and leave only 3 candidates, Rafale, Gripen NG, F-35. Hear it from a Canadian!

at what would happen in Canada if we did select the Gripen, or Rafale. Immediately the government will be criticized for selecting an aircraft that was clearly inferior and cost more than the F-35...especially against the independent commission report's recommendation. Then a decade or two in the future we'd be decrying about how much we were paying to keep our Rafale or Gripens interoperable with the US Military, and what a poor selection we made way back when. We've done this several times in Canada, with the most notable being EH-101 cancellation and selection of the CH-148

**But then the plot thickens!!! Can Canada have cake and eat it too eh?

“I believe those suppliers are part of the team, I don’t see any reason why they would not continue to be part of the team whether Canada [buys jets] or not,” Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s undersecretary of defense for acquisition, told reporters here during a ceremony to celebrate the roll out of Norway’s first F-35. “We make our decisions on participation based on best value, and if Canadian firms are still best value, then they will be part of the program.”

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/industry/2015/09/22/kendall-canadian-suppliers-continue-support-f-35/72636328/

However, I do believe that would include remaining in the JSF program, and I can imagine a country like say Australia which is buying 100 F-35s, might take a bit of issue with a nation buying none getting a large workshare. A lot of partner nations are looking for additional work on the F-35, Canadian contracts in the future would be hotly contested with a lot of arm twisting to see they don't get them should they buy something else (Just my opinion)

So thats all I got right now...

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Potential problem with the ejection seat, although I think it's actually caused more by the weight of the helmet. If you weigh less than 136, you need not apply to fly the F-35 (are there any pilots out there that weigh that much)?

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/now-the-f-35-has-an-ejection-seat-problem-1734594615

Sounds like Martin Baker is hard a work on a fix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Potential problem with the ejection seat, although I think it's actually caused more by the weight of the helmet. If you weigh less than 136, you need not apply to fly the F-35 (are there any pilots out there that weigh that much)?

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/now-the-f-35-has-an-ejection-seat-problem-1734594615

Sounds like Martin Baker is hard a work on a fix.

Potential problem with the ejection seat, although I think it's actually caused more by the weight of the helmet. If you weigh less than 136, you need not apply to fly just about ANYTHING with a bang seat and helmet with some additions

Fixed.

Damn that F-35, not recognizing equality and having weight biases. The aircraft is probably racist too.

NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F/A-18E/F 165533 AND UP AIRCRAFT

15 Sep 2008 USN

"...17.1.1 Ejection Seat Restrictions. During ejection seat development and testing, the SJU-17(V) 1/A, 2/A, and 9/A NACES seats were qualified for use by aviators with nude weights from 136 to 213 pounds, while the SJU-17A (V)1/A, 2/A, and 9/A NACES seats were qualified for use by aviators with nude body weights from 136 to 245 pounds. The minimum and maximum nude body weights allowed by OPNAVINST 3710.7 Series for those on aviation duty are 100 pounds and 235 pounds, respectively.

Therefore, a gap exists between the ejection seat certified weight range and the weights of the current aviator population.

WARNING

• Operation of the ejection seat by personnel weighing less than the qualified minimum nude weight, or more than the maximum qualified weight (noted above), subjects the occupant to increased risk of injury.

• An increased risk of severe injury or death during parachute landing fall (PLF) exists with surface winds exceeding 25 knots. High surface winds contribute directly to total landing velocity. When time permits, select parachute steering and turn into the wind to reduce landing velocity.

• Pilots should be trained in additional ejection risks associated with JHMCS. Ejection with JHMCS may cause severe or fatal injury.

The ejection seat catapult was designed for the qualified weight range only. Ejection seat stability is directly related to occupant restraint. All occupants should be properly restrained in the seat by the torso harness for optimum performance and minimum injury risk. Inertial reel performance may be degraded for occupants outside of the certified weight range

17.1.1.1 Injury Risks - Nude Weight Less than 136 Pounds. Lighter weight occupants are subject to a higher risk of injury due to the following factors:

1. Excessive pull back during inertial reel retraction.

2. Poor positioning during ejection.

3. Greater acceleration during catapult firing.

4. Higher parachute opening shock during ejections near the upper end of Mode 1 (approaching 300 KCAS).

5. Seat instability during drogue deployment during ejections above 300 KCAS.

WARNING

Lighter weight aircrew have greater risk of neck injury during ejection while using the JHMCS configuration. Minimum nude aircrew weights authorized to fly with the JHMCS helmet system is 136 pounds. Aircrew weighing less than the authorized minimum nude weight are restricted from flying with the JHMCS helmet system...."

And this is why Foxtrot Alpha is retarded. In other news F-35's engine can't work when it runs out of jet fuel!! Without doing any comparative research, I can decisively say the F-35 is unique in this.

Edited by TaiidanTomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly news, but I saw the F-35B at the Miramar Air Show again, and it seemed to do a little more than it has at the previous airshow appearances I've seen. A few harder turns, a little more hovering, things like that. Stuff I hadn't noticed before that I thought were interesting were 1) it was much more quiet than a Harrier while hovering 2) it seemed to fly fairly fast with its top intake door open, and 3) the wing vapor trails seem to be very intense, making me wonder what's going on there, aerodynamically.

Here are a few photos I took:

Here it's flying by with intake doors open, but gear up, and just seemed like it was flying fairly fast.

http://www.techflyer.net/images/mm15/album/IMG_9103.jpg

Some vapor over the top, which was fairly common as it would fly by at speed or during hard turns.

http://www.techflyer.net/images/mm15/album/IMG_8824.jpg

And a shot where I tried to get more of the wingtip vapor trails visible - they seem to be tightly curled, and also seemed to last longer than other vapor trails.

http://www.techflyer.net/images/mm15/album/IMG_8896.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly news, but I saw the F-35B at the Miramar Air Show again, and it seemed to do a little more than it has at the previous airshow appearances I've seen. A few harder turns, a little more hovering, things like that. Stuff I hadn't noticed before that I thought were interesting were 1) it was much more quiet than a Harrier while hovering 2) it seemed to fly fairly fast with its top intake door open, and 3) the wing vapor trails seem to be very intense, making me wonder what's going on there, aerodynamically.

Here are a few photos I took:

Here it's flying by with intake doors open, but gear up, and just seemed like it was flying fairly fast.

http://www.techflyer.net/images/mm15/album/IMG_9103.jpg

Some vapor over the top, which was fairly common as it would fly by at speed or during hard turns.

http://www.techflyer.net/images/mm15/album/IMG_8824.jpg

And a shot where I tried to get more of the wingtip vapor trails visible - they seem to be tightly curled, and also seemed to last longer than other vapor trails.

http://www.techflyer.net/images/mm15/album/IMG_8896.jpg

Cool pics BTW :thumbsup: Thanks for sharing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat OT but an interesting article about the E-2D and it's ability to detect LO targets. The part I find particularly fascinating is the discussion on the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability. Seems like a pretty unique capability, using AWACs to guide airborne and sea-launched SAMs.

Maybe having this in it's back pocket is one reason why the USN is lukewarm about the F-35C?

http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-japans-secret-weapon-destroy-chinas-j-20-j-31-14016

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...