F-35 news roundup

[Mr Matt Foley]

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

For those interested, this month's Combat Aircraft has a rather detailed article on VMFA-211's experiences with the jet.   Often these articles are just fan boi pieces but this one is pretty balanced.   Some notable points -

 

• The EOTS didn't seem to be highly regarded, the commander indicated it was nothing better than an early generation targeting pod.  Given that the hardware in this system is getting pretty old, wonder if their are any long term plans to upgrade this?

 

From Lockheed: 

 

Advanced EOTS, an evolutionary electro-optical targeting system, is available for the F-35’s Block 4 development. Designed to replace EOTS, Advanced EOTS incorporates a wide range of enhancements and upgrades, including short-wave infrared, high-definition television, an infrared marker and improved image detector resolution. These enhancements increase F-35 pilots’ recognition and detection ranges, enabling greater overall targeting performance.

[MarkW]

Doing a quick read on the Cyclone, which is just a stupid helo, and all its development issues, ain't nobody got nothing to say about the F-35.

[TaiidanTomcat]

1 hour ago, MarkW said:

Doing a quick read on the Cyclone, which is just a stupid helo, and all its development issues, ain't nobody got nothing to say about the F-35.

 

 

The cyclone is bad, and I'm a guy that said the osprey wasn't as bad as you hear.

[Scooby]

10 hours ago, MarkW said:

Doing a quick read on the Cyclone, which is just a stupid helo, and all its development issues, ain't nobody got nothing to say about the F-35.

 

The CAF wanted to refuse acceptance of the Cyclone. It was so bad the CAF only permitted test pilots to fly it as if they allowed a regular line pilot to fly it that was viewed as acceptance of the airframe.

 

I’d like to know what back door deals were made to keep it.

 

It meets less than 1/3 of the mission capabilities.

[Alvis 3.1]

7 hours ago, Scooby said:

 

The CAF wanted to refuse acceptance of the Cyclone. It was so bad the CAF only permitted test pilots to fly it as if they allowed a regular line pilot to fly it that was viewed as acceptance of the airframe.

 

I’d like to know what back door deals were made to keep it.

 

It meets less than 1/3 of the mission capabilities.

Any time somebody is yammering to me aboot the F-35 being the Worst. Airplane. Ever. I ask them what they know aboot the Cyclone. Crickets. And I live where they're being based! (Eventually)
Drives me crazy. On top of it being the end of a process that should never have gone this route, it's an aircraft that nobody makes as a scale model!

[Scooby]

10 hours ago, Alvis 3.1 said:

Any time somebody is yammering to me aboot the F-35 being the Worst. Airplane. Ever. I ask them what they know aboot the Cyclone. Crickets. And I live where they're being based! (Eventually)
Drives me crazy. On top of it being the end of a process that should never have gone this route, it's an aircraft that nobody makes as a scale model!

 

Sadly, there isn't even a defence for slandering the F-35.

 

What is most upsetting about this is debacle is why the Canadian public isn't furious about this? Why do they allow our political parties to get away with this crap?

 

Instead they chose to stand behind our politicians rather than uniting with our military.

 

CF-18 is Sea King #2. This thread will still be going 25 years from now.

 

 

[MacStingy]

1 hour ago, Scooby said:

What is most upsetting about this is debacle is why the Canadian public isn't furious about this? Why do they allow our political parties to get away with this crap?

The Canadian public is uninformed. The Press has done very little to bring them up to speed. I have forwarded informative information to people around me and I get comments like “ it’s too complicated,” or they can’t be bothered. I have been asked by my wife why I get so wound up over it. The nonsense going on is criminal and nobody is interested. How Canadian.

[Don]

1 hour ago, Scooby said:

...What is most upsetting about this is debacle is why the Canadian public isn't furious about this? Why do they allow our political parties to get away with this crap?

 

Instead they chose to stand behind our politicians rather than uniting with our military.

 

I agree but I wonder if its so much standing behind the politicians as it is indifference or resignation? I don't want to say a lack of caring, because I believe many Canadians do really care about the Canadian Military and do really care about the general direction (...or lack thereof?) Canada is headed. But when I talk with family up in Canada and when I visit every summer the general sentiment seems to be "what are you going to do? It is what it is". Its not that people agree with decisions being made by whomever is in power but they don't know what recourse they have available. And when someone does speak out they are more often then not either completely ignored or shouted down..." Nazi, fascist, racist, sexist, homophobe, <whatever> denier... enter whatever buzzword the mainstream media is currently running with <here>".  Add to that a complicit media who is running lock-step with JT and its no wonder the Cyclone is barely spoken of yet the F-35 is the devil incarnate. 

My 2 cents.

 

Edit: Spelling.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Don

[Scooby]

5 hours ago, Don said:

I agree but I wonder if its so much standing behind the politicians as it is indifference or resignation? I don't want to say a lack of caring, because I believe many Canadians do really care about the Canadian Military and do really care about the general direction (...or lack thereof?) Canada is headed. But when I talk with family up in Canada and when I visit every summer the general sentiment seems to be "what are you going to do? It is what it is". Its not that people agree with decisions being made by whomever is in power but they don't know what recourse they have available. And when someone does speak out they are more often then not either completely ignored or shouted down..." Nazi, fascist, racist, sexist, homophobe, <whatever> denier... enter whatever buzzword the mainstream media is currently running with <here>".  Add to that a complicit media who is running lock-step with JT and its no wonder the Cyclone is barely spoken of yet the F-35 is the devil incarnate. 

My 2 cents.

 

Edit: Spelling.

 

Trust me, I love my country and I love my fellow Canadians. It isn’t in our nature to speak up. I don’t agree that other Canadians shout down those who do speak up. We are a good natured culture. Our weakness is our silence.

 

This isn’t meant to sound selfish or to sound like I feel slighted serving the people of Canada. In my 25 years in uniform, I had meals and tabs picked up anonymously for me worldwide while traveling in uniform, especially in the US. Only once did that occur in Canada (Pearson International).

 

I have since worked for a very well respected helicopter air ambulance organization. It’s embarassing how often I go through a line-up or drive-through and I find out my bill has been picked-up. Quite the contrast to when I was in the military.

 

I also don’t feel jaded by the media. Yes, media outlets were initially reporting poorly on the F-35. Lately I feel they have been doing a wonderful job reporting on the smozzle that the CF-18 replacement has become. There is no shortage of news stories reporting this and these stories are now very negative and critical towards the government and their asinine political decisions.

 

The truth is our Political Culture is much closer to Public Opinion than most people realize or want to admit.

 

Otherwise Canadians would be knocking down doors to stop putting our airmen in these old tired jets. They’d see something wrong with ordering replacement jets that are even older and have already been put to pasture. 

[Scooby]

5 hours ago, MacStingy said:

The Canadian public is uninformed. The Press has done very little to bring them up to speed. I have forwarded informative information to people around me and I get comments like “ it’s too complicated,” or they can’t be bothered. I have been asked by my wife why I get so wound up over it. The nonsense going on is criminal and nobody is interested. How Canadian.

 

The Canadian public doesn’t want to be educated. The information is out there.

 

Why did people vote for Trudeau? A lot of people voted for him because they find him physically attractive. He is spending us into an enormous debt and is killing our economy. I worry for my children’s future.

[11bee]

I worry for this thread being locked due to yet another detour into Canadian political issues.  

[TaiidanTomcat]

2 hours ago, Scooby said:

 

The Canadian public doesn’t want to be educated. The information is out there.

 

Why did people vote for Trudeau? A lot of people voted for him because they find him physically attractive. He is spending us into an enormous debt and is killing our economy. I worry for my children’s future.

 

Your kids will think he's hot too, so it's worth it. 

[TaiidanTomcat]

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

I worry for this thread being locked due to yet another detour into Canadian political issues.  

 

 

I can see your point crazily enough though the Canadians are one of the few sources of drama left in the program barring some crazy event. 

 

And the Canadian drama is the most exciting by far. Not like all those boring countries that run an eval, and make a decision. Moving on and responsibly picking a warplane to defend the western alliance and such. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by TaiidanTomcat

[Scooby]

2 hours ago, 11bee said:

I worry for this thread being locked due to yet another detour into Canadian political issues.  

 

Political issues or fact? Where is the line drawn?

 

The ironic thing is I met Justin Trudeau in my hangar just prior to the election, it was just the two of us. I wished him luck in the election but told him I wasn’t voting for him.

 

I also told him when I was a kid my mom forced me to go see his father speak. I told him I wanted that Saturday back. He had a good laugh at that.

 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Scooby

[TaiidanTomcat]

It was revealed over the weekend that the government intends to keep our aging CF-18 fighter planes in operation until 2032. But, like the Sea King helicopters, the planned retirement date for these jets has been pushed back before. There is no reason to believe the next government won’t try to keep them airborne for another decade after that.

And why not? It will cost us billions in maintenance to ensure these can fly well past their designed lifespan, but it would cost even more to replace them with modern fighter jets. And Canadians don’t really care one way or another. The state of the military is never a significant election issue. And when did you last see a public protest over another leaky frigate or more broken helicopters?

In fact, it is long past time we simply disbanded the Canadian military altogether. That seems like a radical step, but it would require little actual movement—just the simple act of accepting this is where we already stand.

The Canadian Navy, at the end of the Second World War, was the third largest in the world, with 434 ships. We are now down to about three-dozen. Of those four are barely operational submarines, there is nothing that can manage four-season Arctic navigation, and nothing capable of “blue water” or ocean-going fleet operations. In effect, the Canadian Navy has already been disbanded, replaced with a small coastal defence force.

And that force has already abandoned our northern seaboard. You can still see the wind-hollowed remains of a large military base in Churchill, but the long-promised naval base was downgraded to a fuelling facility, and then to a jetty. It is literally a pile of rocks pushed out a hundred yards into a bay. As for the rest of the Canadian Arctic, an area roughly the size of Europe, we are down to only about 120 military personnel—that’s one for every 30,000 square kilometres.

This current government loves to breathlessly emote about our peacekeeping past, but is careful to avoid promising any actual troops. In November of last year, after side-stepping previous promises to make a significant UN deployment, the Prime Minister announced an initiative to increase the proportion of women deployed in peace operations–just not women from the Canadian military. Right now, there are 14 Canadian officers assigned to the UN, a record low; that is less than Honduras, Bhutan, and Armenia. Former Liberal senator Romeo Dallaire explained that this was a new enlightened policy that went beyond the “traditional boots on the ground.” So, why do we even need actual boots anymore?

The Conservative track record on supporting the Canadian military is just as bad. The Navy rusted out on their watch. And in spite of (or perhaps because of) the Afghanistan deployment, defence procurement completely broke down. Nonetheless, former prime minister Stephen Harper was always happy to pose with members of the Canadian military. Because for parties of all stripes, that is the single most important role of the Armed Forces—optics. It allows politicians to look bold, and it allows the country to pretend that we are a useful ally.

But, in truth, it only irritates our allies in the UN, NATO and NORAD. Ottawa loves to show up at international conferences, talk up a storm about the importance of peace or a strong and united defence, then quietly slip out the backdoor when it comes to actually putting troops on the table.

And none of this was a secret. Defence journalists reported on all of this. And the Canadian public greeted every step of decline with a shrug. There were ample opportunities to pressure the government to turn things around, but we frankly just didn’t care.

So, why don’t we just own it and admit the truth, as painful as it is: We do not have a functional military, and that’s the way we want it. Let’s implement this new “enlightened policy” by shutting down the Canadian Forces and declaring ourselves a post-military nation. We could join the ranks of Haiti, Andorra, and Vanuatu.

NATO might accept an annual payment in lieu of actual troops. (We won’t be able to donate any of our tanks or ships, however, unless they want them for scrap.) In return for staying in NORAD we could simply give the Americans a few Arctic islands; we’re not using them. Perhaps we keep a few soldiers for disaster response, but they don’t need guns or jets for that.

In return we would save billions on the duct tape needed to hold our fleets and squadrons together, forces we don’t intend to deploy anyway. We will stop undermining our international relations by making promises we will never honour. And, just as importantly, we would no longer have to demean ourselves and the dedicated men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces by keeping up this ridiculous lie. It would be a tonic for the entire country. So let’s finally move forward and accept this truth: Canada disbanded its military long ago, we just haven’t gotten around to announcing it yet.

 

 

 

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/weve-given-up-on-canadas-military-so-lets-abandon-it-altogether/

 

 

In Canada's defense/defence, plenty of "allies" do what this author outlines. 

 

 

 

[Chris L]

 Well, as your Southern neighbour , I find that very depressing .  It does sound a lot like the attitudes of other Nato allies when I was stationed  in Europe .

 

 So sorry to hear .

 

 Regards , Christian

[-Neu-]

Funny... the hyperbolic article that makes ridiculous claims gets all the attention, when the article that actually outlines the problems surrounding the RCAF and brings new information to the fore gets barely a whisper. 

 

Perhaps that's part of the problem?

Edited February 2, 2018 by -Neu-

[TaiidanTomcat]

11 hours ago, -Neu- said:

Funny... the hyperbolic article that makes ridiculous claims gets all the attention, when the article that actually outlines the problems surrounding the RCAF and brings new information to the fore gets barely a whisper. 

 

Perhaps that's part of the problem?

 

 

I took as more of an extreme bordering on satire. basically facetious.

 

 

One of the more interesting things and I am hoping the Canadians can answer this, Is that the CF-18 replacement I'm told broadly "most Canadians don't care"

 

1. If the CF-18 replacement isn't on anyone's radar, why did Trudeau make it a campaign promise?

 

2. If its still not on the public's radar, and the guy is basically popular for other reasons, Why did he persist in a campaign promise "no one" cared about? 

 

It seemed like the F-35 served its purpose in the sense that it was used as a club against the last guy, and with that club now in the hands of the new guy he would peacefully put it in a corner of the room and hope no one noticed. That happens a lot here. The thing thats used to make the old guy public enemy #1 "disappears" the second the new guy is elected, and that thing often remains unchanged at all throughout the next guy's terms but its associated with the last guy so much the new guy is free to do what he pleases

[AlienFrogModeller]

On 1/30/2018 at 6:42 PM, 11bee said:

For those interested, this month's Combat Aircraft has a rather detailed article on VMFA-211's experiences with the jet.   Often these articles are just fan boi pieces but this one is pretty balanced.   Some notable points -

•   Question for those in the know - how hard is it to upgrade the software on these jets?   I always assumed that it was nothing particularly involved but that doesn't seem to be the case.   Sounds like aircraft with the latest version software are taking a long time to get into service. How do they upgrade to the new version?

Software Upgrade is a very tedious, process that can take months to develop and then test.

Some testing that may be involved:

Lab testing or bench testing on a viable shop model. (depending on numerous components and how they interact with the overall ac.)

Flight Permits

Maint Permits

Ground Testing - Maint - troubleshooting/weapons interfacing etc

Ground Testing - Aircrew functionalities

Maint Tech Order development

Basic Flight functionals

Advanced Flight functionals

Interface testing (new components, weapons etc)

Software Eng reports from the testing

Pilot Testing reports from the testing

Maint testing reports from the testing

The above is Eng Testing and Eval

Next would be Operational Testing Evaluation

Pilot Ac Operation Instruction development

More reports

Final eval for safety of flight and clearance (maint board room safety briefing and eval from higher officials)

Final clearance for release

Maint action to install

Pilot Qualification/Famil/Auth flights

Done.

 

Not overly simple but extremely detailed and thorough. These steps mentioned are general in terms. this can take months just for a simple upgrade. I have seen software/weapons upgrade take well over a year, this includes Testing and Operational Development. 

Hope this helps.

[11bee]

23 hours ago, AlienFrogModeller said:

 

Hope this helps.

Surely does...  I assume that's on a per aircraft basis and not just for a few test airframes to prove it all works?   So if that's the case, is there any reason why earlier version jets can't be brought up to current software standards?   Thought I read something that stated to the effect that most jets flying with earlier versions wouldn't be updated and would eventually be relegated to training use only. 

[11bee]

On 2/1/2018 at 10:25 PM, Scooby said:

 

Political issues or fact? Where is the line drawn?

 

it's easy Scooby.  Try this on - If we took the earlier posts and entered "Trump" instead of JT, would you be deluged with angry counter-posts and requests that the thread be locked and/or offending posts-deleted?  If the answer is YES, it's probably political and doesn't belong.  

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm chaffing at the bit to share my insightful political views of the current US administration with the class.  Those views, like yours, will be fact-based.  However, having been there and done that, I'm trying to show restraint.  I'd suggest that you and your ilk simply do the same.    So much fun stuff to discuss about the F-35 (and tangentially, the broken Canukian military procurement system) without having to go for the political kill shot in every other post. 

[Scooby]

40 minutes ago, 11bee said:

it's easy Scooby.  Try this on - If we took the earlier posts and entered "Trump" instead of JT, would you be deluged with angry counter-posts and requests that the thread be locked and/or offending posts-deleted?  If the answer is YES, it's probably political and doesn't belong.  

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm chaffing at the bit to share my insightful political views of the current US administration with the class.  Those views, like yours, will be fact-based.  However, having been there and done that, I'm trying to show restraint.  I'd suggest that you and your ilk simply do the same.    So much fun stuff to discuss about the F-35 (and tangentially, the broken Canukian military procurement system) without having to go for the political kill shot in every other post. 

 

Sorry, I don’t see the parallel’s. But I have never understood ARC’s rules on getting political. This F-35/CF-18 replacement has been atrocious. All I feel I stated are facts.

 

Anything can be considered political, right down to the cost of models. As long as name calling doesn’t occur I don’t see the problem with having discussions.

[AlienFrogModeller]

1 hour ago, 11bee said:

Surely does...  I assume that's on a per aircraft basis and not just for a few test airframes to prove it all works?   So if that's the case, is there any reason why earlier version jets can't be brought up to current software standards?   Thought I read something that stated to the effect that most jets flying with earlier versions wouldn't be updated and would eventually be relegated to training use only. 

The ET&E and OT&E is per fleet, on the assumption each fleet has the exact same role. If the software role is slightly different needing say for example, EW software, then it can be developed just for that airframe/component requirement.

 

As for the earlier jets brought up to speed, there maybe other testing being done to enhance the current version or stepping up to the next version. Some software development can be done in blocks. So if the release or current version allows the aircraft to just fly/navigate allowing one block development such as weapons, EW, wider ACM capabilities, stores, IFF, comms, escape systems, flight controls, engine, pilot interaction etc etc. Also if the software interacts with the main computers which could affect critical flight areas - Engine, fire detection, flight controls etc, each step is required and possibly starting at the begining of the whole process to ensure safety of flight (company dependant, safety factor dependant and more). That's why you might see some aircraft with different software and possibly all mixed together, tested then released to the fleet as a whole (not including test/development ac). Depending on the feedback some software could be held back to investigate more capabilities or "issues". 

 

That's very generally speaking, hope that helps.

Edited February 4, 2018 by AlienFrogModeller
Typo

[TaiidanTomcat]

4 hours ago, 11bee said:

it's easy Scooby.  Try this on - If we took the earlier posts and entered "Trump" instead of JT, would you be deluged with angry counter-posts and requests that the thread be locked and/or offending posts-deleted?  If the answer is YES, it's probably political and doesn't belong.  

 

 

 

That's a terrible example 

 

The bottom line is that the CF-18 replacement has been completely politicized so we basically have to enter into some politics while talking about it, or not talk about Canada and the CF-18 replacement at all since it's not operating on non political lines anymore. That went out the window a long time ago. 

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by TaiidanTomcat

[MarkW]

I, for one, wholeheartedly supported Harper and the Canadian Afghanistan deployment.  They bought Tim Horton's, after all.  Almost as important as the Dutch, who brought Cuban cigars.