F-35 news roundup

[11bee]

That being said the LRIP aircraft have a much longer lifespan and have been simplified in regards to fastener placement and quantity making it easier to access uncommon areas and return them to LO condition. I pity the bastards who have to insert the 700+ LO dots on one of the backbone panels. But that will simplify the "rivet detail" for us molders. :)/>

Interesting - that gets back to my earlier question on whether the jets that I see pictures of are in go-to-war configuration or require addition LO "treatments". Sounds like the latter.

Are you saying that the current LRIP jets are degraded from a LO standpoint to make them more user friendly or is this a feature of all F-35's?

[Waco]

One of the "perks" of the F-35 is a lot of training is done in the simulator. The pilots can stay current without putting a ton of hours on the airframe for stupid stuff like FAM flights.

I've been hearing this for 20+ years now, as simulator technology gets better, and the alleged cost savings of spending more time in the simulator wins out over fuel and flying dollars. It has yet to pan out. The reality is, simulators cannot adequately replicate some of the more difficult tasks of operating a fighter, specifically the physiological demands. The sim community and the services at large would LOVE to get away from flying the airframes at all, except in combat, and to move all training into the simulators. Unfortunately, it's been fairly well proven that you simply cannot train to all tasks in the simulator. Ironically, many combat tasks CAN be trained in the sim, and specific displays, information management, weapons and sensor tasks, and overall battle management CAN be well rehearsed in the sim. In fact, you can do some things in the sim which you CANNOT do in flying training, such as practicing missile endgame avoidance maneuvers (don't get shot at too much in live training!). What you cannot rehearse very well are FAM flights....getting folks used to G's, feel of the aircraft, and basic handling characteristics.

[Check Six]

An outsider/layperson's POV:

Since the F-35 pilot information system is new and unique, getting serious sim-time/hours is incredibly important.

Mastering all the functions that the F-35 system offers is the hard part. Simply flying said F-35 would be the much easier part.

That being said; Waco brings up an excellent point: There's no substitute for real flying time in the a/c. Period. The pilot must get to know the 'personality' of the a/c. Especially a strike fighter where the pilot will be asking the a/c to do much more violent maneuvers than, say, a C-130J.

By mastering the system via the simulator and then applying it via seat time in the a/c, that would be killing three or four birds with just one stone !

[habu2]

What you cannot rehearse very well are FAM flights....getting folks used to G's, feel of the aircraft, and basic handling characteristics.

While I don't completely disagree, ask Slim if sim time helped save his *ss (and the plane) on AA-1 flight #19.

Edited November 12, 2015 by habu2

[Aggressor01]

Interesting - that gets back to my earlier question on whether the jets that I see pictures of are in go-to-war configuration or require addition LO "treatments". Sounds like the latter.

Are you saying that the current LRIP jets are degraded from a LO standpoint to make them more user friendly or is this a feature of all F-35's?

The LRIP jets are the jets that have all the latest and greatest in them. They have the higher hour airframes as well as other upgrades. They are what the fleet will get and wha will be upgraded. So let me clarify what I was saying about my jet nearing the end of its life span. It is an SDD jet and is a 1st gen F-35. When SDD is complete there will be no more practical use for it and therefore will most like end up on a stick. As for the nut plate issue, the whole jet isn't as you explained especially with the LRIP jets the issue will never be resolved fully IMO. What a lot of people fail to see is that this jet will fight way differently when deployed and therefore their arguement of "it's not better than this jet" is invalid. It's a totally different direction with a jet and after its put through its paces I think it will stand the test of time, and not because it pays my bills, that is my honest opinion

[MarkW]

Okay, not sure what you're getting at. First language matters here. All of the jets built to date, including the SDD jets, are LRIP jets. AA-1 was literally LRIP 1. LRIP 4 was pretty much the end of the SDD jets and the beginning of the aircraft being used operationally; 4 and up make up the current trainer fleet. Any STOVL below BF:19 and LRIP 4 would be ones I would consider to be limited utility.

As for the SDD jets going away, that is highly unlikely. The next decade of this program's future post SDD is going to be dedicated to US and partner weapons testing. That means every airframe available, whether it is a mission systems jet or a flight dynamics jet will be engaged by the flight test community for weapon certification for the foreseeable future. Look at the F-22 flight test program; of the jets that are in the standard configuration, only one of them has "ended up on a stick", and that's the one currently sitting in the US Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. The only reason why that jet is there is because it was broken during flight test and is no longer airworthy. That is also why AA-1 was specifically chosen for live fire testing over all the other SDD jets; it was the least common configuration, but still usable to get shot up. If they wanted a more representative jet, they would've used any different SDD jet, but as I said all those jets in SDD are spoken for in the foreseeable future.

Second, you missed my point about the nut plates. There was a time on this jet where you were guaranteed to break a nut plate statistically speaking every couple hundred fasteners. This resulted in maintenance downtime to repair the integrated nut plate and/or fastener. For some of the larger panels that had literally hundreds of fasteners, this resulted in a near endless do loop of having to repair nut plates because you couldn't put the whole thing back together without usually breaking one. I never implied the entire jet had this problem; but there are certain panels that are very large and do have lots of fasteners. The avionics bay doors were notorious for this. I was simply asking if LM had improved the reliability of those fasteners. Granted those aren't routine bays to get into, but if you do need to get in there it be nice to be able to get in, get out and not have to repair the door itself. Again, the design of the jet is intended to minimize getting into those bays. But it does occasionally have to happen and I was wondering if they had ever resolved the issue.

To address 11bee's question, you've got to stop thinking of this like the F-117, a B-2, or a F-22. It does not use the same type of coating or sealing technology, and it does not "degrade" in the same way that prior stealth aircraft would as their tape, putty, or other coatings wear off or away. This aircraft and airframe by design incorporates the lessons learned on prior stealth applications. It was expressly intended to not have the huge MMH/FR the F-117 or B-2 have. It was also expressly designed to avoid the huge ramp-up and maintenance to get into a "go to war" configuration. As an aircraft modeler, be very happy of this; you don't have to worry about that damned "Raptor sheen" (the main reason why I have yet to complete my Academy F-22 kit) issue on the F-35 specifically because of how it achieves low RCS.

All that said, it is just as likely the USAF Thunderbirds F-16s will ever go to war as the training jets at Yuma or Eglin.

[11bee]

To address 11bee's question, you've got to stop thinking of this like the F-117, a B-2, or a F-22. It does not use the same type of coating or sealing technology, and it does not "degrade" in the same way that prior stealth aircraft would as their tape, putty, or other coatings wear off or away. This aircraft and airframe by design incorporates the lessons learned on prior stealth applications. It was expressly intended to not have the huge MMH/FR the F-117 or B-2 have. It was also expressly designed to avoid the huge ramp-up and maintenance to get into a "go to war" configuration. As an aircraft modeler, be very happy of this; you don't have to worry about that damned "Raptor sheen" (the main reason why I have yet to complete my Academy F-22 kit) issue on the F-35 specifically because of how it achieves low RCS.

Pretty amazing, I'm somewhat hard-wired to equate a smooth, fastener-free surface with LO. As a bit of a JSF skeptic, I tip my hat to the jet for this very impressive characteristic.

Don't have to worry about that "Raptor Sheen" but you still have to deal with all that "RAM tape" or whatever it is.

It's not all roses Mark.

[TaiidanTomcat]

The federal government has started taking action on a Liberal promise to dump the F-35 stealth fighter and purchase a cheaper aircraft to replace the military’s CF-18 jets.

Public Services and Procurement Canada has created a new office to oversee the purchase. Paula Folkes-Dallaire, a senior public servant from the Fisheries department, is slated to start Monday as senior director of the Future Fighter Capability project, sources told the Citizen.

So far, three employees are on the Public Services and Procurement team, but it is unclear how large it will eventually become.

Industry representatives say they expect the federal cabinet to look at the fighter aircraft replacement in early December and provide more details on how bureaucrats are to proceed.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said his government will withdraw from the U.S.-led F-35 fighter jet program and instead hold a competition for a less expensive aircraft to replace the military’s CF-18s.

“The team will work closely with National Defence and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to implement the government’s direction,” Michèle LaRose, a spokeswoman from Public Services and Procurement Canada, said in an email to the Citizen.

Trudeau has promised to quickly move on replacing the CF-18s.

“We will launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18s, keeping in mind the primary mission of our fighter aircraft is the defence of North America,” he said during the election campaign. “This process will also ensure that bids include guaranteed industrial benefits for Canadian companies and workers.”

On Friday, the Liberal government released the mandate letters for its ministers, including those of the minister of defence and minister of public services and procurement. In the letters, Trudeau tells them to work together on launching “an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft, focusing on options that match Canada’s defence needs.”

The Royal Canadian Air Force will co-ordinate with the Public Services and Procurement department on the new fighter jet and will be required to come up with a statement of requirements for the planes. The procurement branch at the DND will also assist the RCAF and be involved in the withdrawal from the F-35 program. There is no timeline yet for the withdrawal.

A Lockheed Martin spokeswoman said Canada continues to be a partner in the F-35 program. But the Liberal government isn’t expected to deviate from its plan to buy a cheaper alternative to the F-35.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/government-sets-up-new-office-to-buy-replacement-aircraft-for-cf-18s

We are laughing WITH you Canada, we promise.

[GreyGhost]

>>> Article <<<

-Gregg

[Sarathi S.]

I can see people having a field day with that article.

[Wayfarer 30]

That is what testing is for.

[TaiidanTomcat]

That is what testing is for.

Yep

[TaiidanTomcat]

Flying the F-35 – Experiences from the First Week

20 Nov 2015 Morten Hanche

"

(Ed: On 10 November 2015 the first Norwegian F-35-pilot, Major Morten «Dolby» Hanche flew the F-35 for the first time at Luke Air Force Base. After one week and four flights in the F-35 Major Hanche has summarized his impression of the aircraft so far in this blog post. In order to make his post accessible to a wider audience, we have translated it into English. We have tried to remain as true as possible to Major Hanche’s original text, though some words are difficult to translate directly into English. For instance, the Norwegian word «sprek» which Hanche uses a few time to describe the aircraft, is commonly used to describe a person that is fast, fit and vigorous. Here we have translated it generally as «fast», even though that doesn’t cover the full meaning of the word. Still, we hope the general impression comes through.)"

"I am left with many impressions after a handful of flights with the F-35 over Arizona. In this post, I will try to describe the feeling and perception I have developed flying the F-35 so far.

First things first; the aircraft is easy to handle on the ground. The brakes are direct and powerful yet predictable, and the nose wheel steering is precise. The steering has two «gears» making the process of maneuvering the aircraft in and out of its parking spot under the sun screens that the aircraft are parked under. I hardly noticed the cross winds when I took off for the first time. It was easy to put the nose of the aircraft where I wanted it when I raised it for takeoff. The aircraft was stable in the air from the second it lifted it off the ground, and requires no manual «trimming» on my part.

An odd experience I want to mention is the feeling of bringing up the landing gear. In the F-16 I really don’t notice it that much. In the F-35, however, there is no doubt that the wheels are being retracted. As my American buddy «Nails» said after his first trip: «It felt like someone hit the airplane with a hammer!» A solid and noticeable «CLUNK» tells you that the gear is up. It could possibly have something to do with the fact that the landing gear is quite huge.

With wheels up I quickly noticed another peculiarity with F-35; the aircraft has a kind of continuous quivering sensation. A kind of weak high-frequency tremor. A bit like the feeling you get standing on the top deck of an old car ferry where you can sense a weak vibration from the engine. This trembling is fairly constant until I begin maneuvering the aircraft more aggressively. That increases the force of the trembling until it is like driving a car on a graveled cottage road. This kind of trembling is often referred by the technical term «buffeting».

Buffeting can be a problem if it is too violent. In the T-38 training aircraft I once had an engine instrument (the tachometer) that was shaken out of the instrument panel. That is problematic. Vigorous shaking can also make it difficult to read the instruments in the cockpit, and thus prevent the pilot doing his job. In that case it becomes critical.

A more positive side to buffeting however is that it acts as feedback to the pilot. In modern fighters computers decide which control surfaces are to be moved and how much – «fly-by-wire». That means the pilot misses out on important feedback through the rudder pedals and control stick. How much I move them is not directly linked to what is actually happening with the control surfaces. The F/A-18, for example, moves the ailerons gradually in the opposite direction during heavy maneuvering, without me as a pilot really noticing. The aircraft is however still doing what I am asking it to do. Most Norwegian F-16s have little or no buffeting when maneuvering. That means that in the F-16 I have to use the instruments to get an impression of just much lift I am really demanding from the aircraft. I might be flying fast or slow – maybe dangerous slow – and the only hint I get comes from the gauges. In the F-35 I can physically feel whether I am operating the aircraft in its «good-zone» when maneuvering, or whether I am demanding too much from it and losing energy. I can also physically feel whether I am flying too fast or, worse, if I am flying dangerously slow in the landing pattern.

Critics have argued that the F-35 by definition is a slow aircraft, based on the balance between thrust from the engine and overall weight. However, when interviewed after my first flight, I said that I was impressed with the engine power of the aircraft. How can that be true? Am I bought and paid for by Lockheed Martin, or is it the Ministry of Defence that threatens government reprisals if I don’t provide «the official story»? I know that many have doubts regarding the F-35 when it comes to both maneuverability and engine power.

When I was a kid, my buddy Håkon and I would sometimes play «car trumps». The idea was to do to pull the card with the best car on it. The «best» car was usually the car with A) the most horsepower, or B) the greatest top speed (according to the card). My experience with aircraft so far is that the world is not black or white. «It depends» is an eternal mantra among pilots, and it is usually not easy to measure one system against another. Another point to consider is what data we are actually comparing. The F-16 manual for instance says that the aircraft is capable of going more than twice the speed of sound. I have flown more than 2,000 hours in the F-16 and have never been able to get the aircraft to go that fast. Is it not correct that the F-16 can achieve twice the speed of sound? Are we overstating the facts by claiming that this is the real performance of the aircraft?

I still claim that the F-35 is fast compared to the F-16, an aircraft I know well. Can this be explained as nothing but lies? I believe it can. The F-35 has a huge engine. Another important factor is that the F-35 has low aerodynamic drag, because it carries all the systems and weapons internally. The F-16 is fast and agile when clean, but external stores steals performance. It is never relevant to discuss the performance of a stripped F-16. Therefore, this is never as simple as discussing the ratio of thrust and weight alone.

In any case, technical discussions aside, I was impressed by how steep the F-35 climbed after I did a «touch-and-go» on my first flight. Without using afterburner, and with more fuel on board than the F-16 can carry, I accelerated the aircraft to 300 knots in a continuous climb. Acceleration only stopped when I lifted the nose to more than 25 degrees above the horizon. I do not think our F-16 could have kept up with me without the use of afterburner. I was also impressed with how quickly the F-35 accelerates in afterburner. On my fourth flight I took off using full afterburner. The plane became airborne at 180 knots. At that point I had to immediately bring the engine back to minimum afterburner to avoid overspeed of the landing gear before it was fully retracted (speed limit is 300 knots).

Another first impression is how stable the aircraft is when flying in close formation. I have flown a handful of different fighter aircraft, and I have never had an easier job of maintaining close formation with another aircraft. The F-35 feels stable and predictable when making minor adjustments – much the same feeling I have driving a large American SUV. Still, when I move the stick or the throttle, the handling is both quick and precise (A SUV with a V8 – at least!). Overall, flying the F-35 reminds me a bit of flying the F/A-18 Hornet, but with an important difference: It has been fitted with a turbo.

The final point that I want to mention in this post is the experience of sitting in the cockpit. After reading about poor cooling and high noise levels in the cockpit, I was of course curious. I was pleasantly surprised. The «office space» was cool and comfortable, but above all, I was surprised by how quiet it was compared to what I’m used to. Is comfort important in a fighter jet? I believe it is. Not only during long missions that can last up to 10 hours, but also in daily exercises. It is obvious that a noise-insulated cockpit reduces hearing loss for pilots over time. I would also argue that it improves flight safety because it makes it easier to hear what is being transmitted on the radio and because noise becomes tiresome with time.

I’m saving a little for a later. Just the landing pattern is worth a small post in itself!”

http://blogg.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2015/11/20/a-fly-f-35-erfaringer-fra-den-forste-uka/

[Raceaddict]

It's official:

http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-news-2015/november/2144-canada-reopens-tender-for-new-fighter-aircraft.html

Canada is out of the F-5 program.

[Gordon Shumway]

It's official:

http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-news-2015/november/2144-canada-reopens-tender-for-new-fighter-aircraft.html

Canada is out of the F-5 program.

F-5 :lol: of course you meant F-35 :)

This is just procedural. I would not count F-35 out yet. It looks as if the new government is starting as it says a new "open competition". I'm pretty sure Lock Mart will have people up in Ottawa lobbying to make sure F-35 is in the running in a new open competition as the government again says it is setting up. To not allow LM F-35 to even be proposed would not make said competition be transparent

There just are not too many true options in this regard for a new combat jet.

IMO, it's gonna be between Boeing F-18E/F or LM F-35 with an outlier the Eurofighter Typhoon. Rafale and Gripen NG are/would be only window dressing in an open competition. We for political reasons also would not look at Russian combat jets even if they are doing a serious beat down over Sryia. :lol:

I hope this does not drag out for years though. I hope whichever new combat jet we get in the end, that it's chosen rationally and efficiently quick.

[Trigger]

Canada is out of the F-5 program.

Damn. I always liked CF-5 schemes. :crying2:/>

[MarkW]

I'm glad Canada had the wisdom to elect a guy who is fairly young all things considered, has zero military experience, and yet has single handedly determined what Canada's future fighter needs are. That said, the reality is the F-35 will still be competitive as LRIPs drive costs down, SDD winds down, and LM can spice up the renegotiated IP deals...oh snap.

Trudeau is crazy like a fox. Or a complete tard.

[Gordon Shumway]

I'm glad Canada had the wisdom to elect a guy who is fairly young all things considered, has zero military experience, and yet has single handedly determined what Canada's future fighter needs are. That said, the reality is the F-35 will still be competitive as LRIPs drive costs down, SDD winds down, and LM can spice up the renegotiated IP deals...oh snap.

Trudeau is crazy like a fox. Or a complete tard.

PM Trudeau to be fair has not determined what Canada's needs are re: new combat jets. He promised a new and what his government determines as an open competition for the RCAF's next combat jet and to fill what will be our basic future needs concerning said combat jets. His promise is coming true. For that as Canadians we should be happy that it's a promise kept, as in time politicians all fall away from keeping promises.

Nothing said so far means F-35 will not be considered. I'm certain LM ain't gonna just say "Oh well!" and walk away from possible billions of dollars that may be had. I'm certain the government will be seeking participants in this competition and that will likely include F-35. F-35 will then stand in its own and as such will likely be a bench mark to see what and how others may compete for Dnd/RCAF needs. If in the end F-35 stands out as the best all around choice, odds are DnD will propose to the government to select it. If other competitors stand up enough and appropriately to fill what the DnD and RCAF feels as its needs, well maybe one of them will be proposed to be selected.

The government had to end any ties to the current F-35 situation for Canada, if it wanted to be seen as being transparent in an open competition. If it did not do this, then the other competitors would probably feel that they are competing behind the eight ball so to speak.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Gordon Shumway

[TaiidanTomcat]

It's official:

http://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/global-news-2015/november/2144-canada-reopens-tender-for-new-fighter-aircraft.html

Canada is out of the F-5 program.

Where did it say that?'

Also

The Pentagon's No. 2 will sound out Canada's new government on Friday on its defense plans following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's election on promises to scrap purchases of F-35 jets and pull Canadian aircraft from strikes on Islamic State.

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said on Thursday that Canada's stance on Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 program was not entirely clear.

"We're not certain exactly what the Canadian position is," Work told reporters shortly before landing in Halifax, where he will attend a security forum.

"The Prime Minister has said that he wants to review it. But they have an awful lot of companies in Canada who were going to do work. So we don't know exactly where they're going. So I'm here basically to ask them: 'What is your position?'"

Canada, one of the nine countries in the initial F-35 partnership, pledged to invest $150 million in the program's development when it signed up in February 2002.

Those funds would not be reimbursed if Canada exits the program. Many Canadian firms that supply parts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Lockheed each year could also lose those orders.

"We'd like as many partners in the F-35 program as possible. But it's up for every country to decide what their defense needs are," Work said, stressing he was not going to lobby Canada's defense minister one way or the other when they meet on Friday.

Trudeau's Liberal party has said it would launch an open and transparent competition to replace Canada's aging CF-18 fighter jets, potentially offering hope to Boeing Co's F/A-18E/F fighters.

Trudeau held his first formal meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday in the Philippines, moving to repair relations that had become frayed over the past decade.

Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/20/us-usa-canada-defense-f-idUSKCN0T90CB20151120#Q3TfgoPfqpbQ7bET.99

Edited November 20, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat

[MarkW]

PM Trudeau to be fair has not determined what Canada's needs are re: new combat jets. He promised a new and what his government determines as an open competition for the RCAF's next combat jet and to fill what will be our basic future needs concerning said combat jets. His promise is coming true. For that as Canadians we should be happy that it's a promise kept, as in time politicians all fall away from keeping promises.

I stand corrected. He made an ignorant campaign promise, which he is following through with. He certainly knew no more about the F 35 program or Canada's air defense needs at that time. You should be so proud.

Nothing said so far means F-35 will not be considered. I'm certain LM ain't gonna just say "Oh well!" and walk away from possible billions of dollars that may be had. I'm certain the government will be seeking participants in this competition and that will likely include F-35. F-35 will then stand in its own and as such will likely be a bench mark to see what and how others may compete for Dnd/RCAF needs. If in the end F-35 stands out as the best all around choice, odds are DnD will propose to the government to select it. If other competitors stand up enough and appropriately to fill what the DnD and RCAF feels as its needs, well maybe one of them will be proposed to be selected.

The government had to end any ties to the current F-35 situation for Canada, if it wanted to be seen as being transparent in an open competition. If it did not do this, then the other competitors would probably feel that they are competing behind the eight ball so to speak.

What was so transparent or opaque about the original competition? Was it really handled so poorly that this is necessary, or is this purely partisan politics on Trudeau's part because "the other guys did it"?

So the gamble here is you will get cheaper jets at some point if you stand the F 35 program? Let me tell you the ways that doesn't work. If/when Canada withdraws they will no longer be considered a partner nation and will be relegated to FMS status. Granted they will have very high FMS status, but they will be FMS nonetheless. There is an excellent chance that Canada will have to find its own reprogramming lab at that time since it will no longer be part of the partner lab set up. As an FMS customer, they will be perpetually at the backend of all the development efforts as partners come first. And they will have no vote in anything. In the meantime, Canada's current allotment of industrial participation will be shifted to other paying customers, and dangled out there to attract other FMS customers.

So yes, for practical effects Canada is pulling completely out of the F 35 program and there is no point in the F 35 competing for the new effort as Trudeau will have single-handedly driven up the cost of the overall program by about another $120 million for a Canada unique reprogramming lab. The industrial participation part of the program will by necessity be greatly reduced, or have to have ridiculous add-ons like a FACO or other silly things like that to try to sweeten the deal. Which they really won't.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I stand corrected. He made an ignorant campaign promise, which he is following through with. He certainly knew no more about the F 35 program or Canada's air defense needs at that time. You should be so proud.

What was so transparent or opaque about the original competition? Was it really handled so poorly that this is necessary, or is this purely partisan politics on Trudeau's part because "the other guys did it"?

The PMs that got canada into JSF, and signed the MOU for the F-35 hail from Trudeaus own party.

Not trying to get political, just pointing out that the other guys in this case aren't even the other guys. His own party got canada into the F-35.

The other issue is this "defense of canada" idea. The defense of North America is a mutual agreement between the US and Canada. What is the US buying and relying on? What aircraft can canada pick that would insure the best interoperability for its ally and fellow defender?

I wonder...

[Gordon Shumway]

Of course politics play its role... A new government that ran on a mandate that said it was going to renew the future for Canada's next combat jet and as such establish what they plan to see as an open competition. It does not matter what and how previous decisions over F-35 for RCAF played out. Yesterday's governments are yesterday's governments. It is like this not just in Canada, not just in the USA and not just in others nations.

Nothing about what has unfolded here should surprise anyone concerning Canada's next combat jet.

That said, I still think LM with its F-35 will be tendered for consideration among any other competitors. Of course Boeing will be there with F-18E/F, France says its going to propose Rafale. I'm certain Eurofighter Typhoon will be in the process and maybe even SAAB with Gripen NG. LM has not lost anything as of yet, as Canada did not ratify a purchase prior to the last election. The last government stopped its plan to buy 65 F-35's because of what looked like bad politics. LM was in a holding pattern with any future purchase by DnD for the RCAF. LM will not likely walk away from possible tens of billions of dollars. It's going to try to reassert that F-35 will be the best choice for RCAF and Canadian business. But so too will Boeing with F-18E/F and likely the other players.

In the end politics will play a role but so to will dollars and cents as well. Add of course experts looking at our needs for said future combat jet and what/any industrial spin offs may come.

I'm confident in saying that none of us here are plugged in enough to add any real value to which fighter jet Canada ultimately settles with and what the requirements list will be let alone the bargaining and politics of industrial spin offs.

We are all just water cooler talking here. In the end my major concern is that the choice is done properly and efficiently so that our CF-18s can be stood down before they are all worn out.

[MarkW]

choice is done properly and efficiently

You would be mistaken that all posters in this thread are simply water cooler level of discourse, and as for your simple desire above, that, sir is long part ever happening.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Of course politics play its role... A new government that ran on a mandate that said it was going to renew the future for Canada's next combat jet and as such establish what they plan to see as an open competition. It does not matter what and how previous decisions over F-35 for RCAF played out. Yesterday's governments are yesterday's governments. It is like this not just in Canada, not just in the USA and not just in others nations.

The thing is, they are still a part of the JSF program until they officially withdraw. they are going to have a "open, fair, transparent" competition, this will take years. So here is the paradox:

If they withdraw from the JSF program they lose the contracts as the program is starting to pick up.

If they stay in the program while tendering a competition that includes the JSF, its not exactly a fair competition is it?

Conversely they can't excluse the JSF from a competition both legally, and for optics because its not a fair competition if one candidate is arbitrarily excluded.

I guess there is one option where Canada stay in the JSF program yet tenders a competition excluding it somehow. LOL

And of course the other option, which is doing nothing. which is always on the table. Especially since all the "savings" from picking a "cheaper option" other than the F-35 are supposed to be folded into other programs. I don't know what you do when you find out there are no savings, but have made promises in other areas already.

If the procurement weirdness was from anywhere else you wouldn't believe it but this is Canada. I can't wait to see how all this falls apart, and the strange gymnastics that are about to take place.

this is so SNAFU the deputy went there to ask what they hell is going on. Eventually Canada will have to poo or get off the pot, and once again despite the tough talk, Canada remains in the JSF program while continuing to send mixed messages, and waste money and time on yet one more evaluation.

In the end politics will play a role but so to will dollars and cents as well. Add of course experts looking at our needs for said future combat jet and what/any industrial spin offs may come.

I'm confident in saying that none of us here are plugged in enough to add any real value to which fighter jet Canada ultimately settles with and what the requirements list will be let alone the bargaining and politics of industrial spin offs.

I would actually disagree with that statement (and no I don't mean myself) I will leave it up to him if he chooses to post.

In the end my major concern is that the choice is done properly and efficiently

what a welcome change.

Edited November 21, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat

[phantom]

All I know is it sounds like the Sea King debacle all over again. Going away from one contract that provided Canada with production benefits. (hopefully not this time) Paying LOTS of millions in penalties. Then most important depriving Canadian airmen with a modern safe airframe. Notice how 25 years since Trudeau party scrapped the Sea King replacement we are still flying the Sea King?

The A/B Hoornet is NOT going to last another 25 years. By the time Trudeau gets his thumb out I wonder if the E/F Hornet will still be in production?