Canadian government cancels F-35 purchase

[TaiidanTomcat]

But they do indeed upgrade ...

F-4B to F-4N, F-4J to F-4S ...

AV-8B to AV-8B+ etc, etc , etc ...

You can slice it into "Micro-Upgrades" if you want but you're just trying to push the goal line back ...

-Gregg

Ok then, Navy upgrades its fighters heavily rather then replace them.

[-Neu-]

None of this cr@p had to be for Canada.

All the govt. had to do was to draft a list of Request For Proposals, open a free and fair competition to any current fighter aircraft in production or soon to be in production. Let each manufacture offer up any industrial spin offs as well and let a competition unfold. Even if the F-35 was the one the CF and the govt. was quietly rooting for if it is as lucrative of a platform and of industrial spin offs as the picture being propagandized over the last 2+ years it WOULD WIN! and the nay sayers would have NO AMMUNITION to argue. But nooooo the fighter had to be picked without any credible basics of a competition and to force the manufactures who would have competed also in the field of industrial spinoffs.

After all is this not how a capitalist system works? One of competition. What the Canadian govt. has done here and we do it as good as any other countries a'hole national govts. full of B.S. bureaucracy is to bureaucratize and make it look like favours are being done instead of having a proper and full competitive basis. Again even if F-35 appears to be the best for the RCAF it would LOOK MUCH BETTER to have it win in a full and fair competition!

I'm not saying F-35 is not the right machine for the RCAF. I'm only saying the CF and the idiots in govt. made this all blow up in their damn faces. It never had to be this way if they'd just have tendered an RFP, invited all to compete and address any industrial spinoffs as a result of the competition. Thus it would all then let the chips fall where they may. If F-35 is as sold world's better than any other IT WOULD WIN! What would the CF, Canadian Govt. and Lock-Mart have to worry then?

Canada = ALL TOO OFTEN RANK CRONYISM!!!

There are two problems with this view. The first is that the F-35's performance and cost was significantly better than the competitors. I'd also argue that it still is when you organize the data on apples to apples terms... but that will now come out in the selection process. It didn't make sense to hold a competition because that would be a waste of taxpayers money.

The second issue is that the JSF international partnership program just didn't have a good time to hold a competition. We were an observer in the program since 1999, and the program's structure doesn't really leave a point for foreign customers to hold a competition. The best time would have been 2006, when we signed the MOU to gain industrial benefits, but that would have been very early in the process. It is important to note that Australia, the UK, Italy and Turkey never held a competitive tender. I believe the Netherlands and Denmark are the only two... maybe norway. So other countries felt confident enough in their estimates to remain in the program.

Finally I resent the statement that they were "motivated by cronyism." I've worked with a lot of people who manage these programs, in the trenches, so to speak. I don't think I've met any who didn't have personal integrity or the interests of Canada at heart. This wasn't about cronyism... it was about trying to do the best for the country.

Edited December 7, 2012 by -Neu-

[Scooby]

I would think that airframe life on a hypothetical Canadian F/A-18E/F would be a little less stressful than carrier ops, given the thing isn't taking a pounding by being catapulted off of and landing on the deck of a ship during every mission. Granted that doesn't have much an affect on the flying hours themselves, but it will likely help at least a little bit.

No, the distance we taxi in Cold Lake is more stressful than a carrier landing. The jet wasn't designed to taxi that distance with a full load of fuel and stores. I got this right from a Boeing rep in Cold Lake.

Being a maintainer I was shocked too. I would have thought the opposite.

[Horrido]

Vibration issues due to taxiing on an airframe optimized for vertical landing impact?

[TaiidanTomcat]

Vibration issues due to taxiing on an airframe optimized for vertical landing impact?

Its ten thousand little bumps that get you in the end.

There is only so much hurt carrier aircraft can take too. Cats and traps are limited.

Edited December 8, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[RiderFan]

sigh... now I don't know if I should be working on a CF-35 decal sheet or a CF-18E sheet...

[Cadfael]

Vibration issues due to taxiing on an airframe optimized for vertical landing impact?

That's part of the problem. The landing gear is most efficient at the initial point of landing where there is high velocity and high rate of strut closure. The impacts during taxiing are less than those encountered during landing and the strut orifices are so large that there is little or no damping from the landing gear while on the ground. Combine this with increasingly flexible airfames and you have increased fatigue damage from ground vibration.

Cheers

Edited December 8, 2012 by Cadfael

[TaiidanTomcat]

That's part of the problem. The landing gear is most efficient at the initial point of landing where there is high velocity and high rate of strut closure. The impacts during taxiing are less than those encountered during landing and the strut orifices are so large that there is little or no damping from the landing gear while on the ground. Combine this with increasingly flexible airfames and you have increased fatigue damage from ground vibration.

Cheers

Well explained!

So that did carry over with the Super Hornet?

[GreyGhost]

Ok then, Navy upgrades its fighters heavily rather then replace them.

Wow Dude ... You go from one extreme to the other ...

I never said they don't replace aircraft, all I said is they do have a history of upgrading them also ...

-Gregg

[TaiidanTomcat]

Wow Dude ... You go from one extreme to the other ... :doh:/>

I never said they don't replace aircraft, all I said is they do have a history of upgrading them also ...

-Gregg

I honestly just want to talk about the F-35

[Cadfael]

Well explained!

So that did carry over with the Super Hornet?

It's a problem for just about all aircraft, especially as they get bigger. When you are on an airliner you can feel nearly every joint, crack and bump on the ramp and taxi-way and sometimes see the wings flex because of the lack of damping. There have been studies done on introducing active controls in the landing gear system to force a response from ground loads, but I haven't heard of anything being operationally used.

Cheers

[xv107]

Why go with a Tiffy? They are getting smoked by early model F-16's

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/08/eurofighter_beaten_by_f16/

:)/>

Forgive me going back off the F-35 for a moment and back to the Typhoon. There is a slight problem in that The Register articles are written by Lewis Page, who has been waging a one-man war against the Typhoon for years. No fact is too small to be rushed into publication without being fully researched if it traduces the Typhoon...

The F-16s are supposed to have handed the Typhoons their rear ends in a sling at one of the iterations of Ex Anatolian Eagle. The problem is that the Pakistani AF F-16s attended Ex AE when Typhoons weren't on the Exercise; put another way, and bluntly, the entire story linked to above is in fact BS.

The earlier link contains a number of errors (there were some criticisms of the NAO report from some quarters regarding the way it apparently changed the way in which the cost was calculated; the debate over retiring Tranche 1 aircraft was entirely misunderstood in the piece, etc, etc), but the most obvious is that Page wrote this piece, complete with line about not doing bombing until 2016 less than six weeks before Typhoon was self-designating weapons over Libya...

But since Typhoon appears not to be in the mix for the RCAF yet, that's a bit of a moot point for the moment.

[-Neu-]

Wow Dude ... You go from one extreme to the other ... :doh:/>

I never said they don't replace aircraft, all I said is they do have a history of upgrading them also ...

-Gregg

One thing I'd point out is that alot of "upgrades" are really new builds of the same aircraft, rather than upgrades put into existing airframe. The F/A-18E/F was unique in this respect that there were alot of midlife upgrades, but even then there are limitations to what they did. As the poster earlier stated, Navy Aircraft have a very short service life; its often cheaper to junk an aircraft and buy a new one than upgrade it.

[fulcrum1]

If the F-35 program gets canned or at best, a few hundred aircraft, what will that mean for others on board with the project? We may be seeing more Rafales, Typhoons, Super Hornets, and Silent Eagles than we thought.

[TaiidanTomcat]

If the F-35 program gets canned or at best, a few hundred aircraft, what will that mean for others on board with the project? We may be seeing more Rafales, Typhoons, Super Hornets, and Silent Eagles than we thought.

Canada is ordering 65. So i'm guessing its not going to throw much of a wrench in the plans, if they decide not to buy 65. If even they changed their mind mid build, the aircaft just get passed to the next country in line. Their industrial perks also get passed on (as we speak people are salivating over those, should Canada say good bye to the F-35) This of course will reinforce their willingness to stay on- more money, more jobs, a large fleet of aircraft to ensure money and jobs. I do not believe there will be a "dominoe effect" if Canada walks, it will be just Canada. The rest will take their incentives.

Typhoons are the most expensive option in the bunch, the Silent Eagle doesn't exist beyond a mock up form and a tested CFT missile launch and its near F-35 prices, along with 2 engines, and a second crewmember, with none of the VLO that an F-35 offers. God love the F-15 but it still has the radar return of a barn, and even with canted fins (Boeing dropped the canted fins BTW) it still sticks out like a sore thumb. The Super hornet is probably the most viable option the Silent Eagle is the least so because Canada if they were to adopt it could move from one development hell right into the next.

Most nations involved with the F-35 already have skin in the game in money and industrial options. Leaving the table to pursue something else means kissing the money already contributed good bye, losing the industrial options, and then spending money on something else that won't be an F-35, but will still cost a lot of money all the same.

the US for example has no option B. What I mean by that is, if the USAF wanted the super Hornet, they probably would have bought some by now. The Silent Eagle is going to be expensive to buy and operate and still won't have F-35 features. Unlike the F-22 there is no F-35 waiting to break the fall. If the USAF were to only acquire a few hundred units it would be a disaster for them and of course for US exports of the F-35.

Every dollar you spend on some half measure or new idea is money that could have been spent on F-35s. Which is why the US Government and no other government has yet funded the Silent Eagle. I think you are more likely to see the SU-47 Berkut in production than the silent eagle.

Edited December 8, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[TaiidanTomcat]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/07/john-ivison-f-35s-officially-costed-at-45802000000-in-new-report/

45,802,000,000. That’s the number that will stand out when the Harper government releases KPMG’s report on the cost of the F-35 program early next week.

The National Post has seen sections of the report, including the cost estimates calculated by the accountancy firm charged with forecasting the entire 42-year life cycle cost of buying 65 new fighter jets.

According to KPMG, it will cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $46-billion to replace the fleet of 77 aging CF18s with the F-35s — nearly twice the numbers circulated by the Department of National Defence and roughly what the province of Ontario spends on health care every year

The cost per plane is now estimated to be $88-million in five years, when production is expected to be at full throttle, compared to DND’s earlier forecast of $70-75-million.

The sticker shock is likely to put a severe dent in public, and ministerial, enthusiasm for the F-35, which the Conservatives defended against all comers as the best plane and the best value for money, until the Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson, released a scathing report on the amount of due diligence done on the fighter last spring.

However, contrary to rumours of its demise, the F-35 program is still very much alive. The government’s operations committee has discussed the roll-out of the KPMG report but full Cabinet has not made any decisions on the program. The KPMG report, when viewed in context, does not suggest the F-35 should be dismissed as a contender to succeed the CF18s.

The report validates much of the costing done by National Defence. The acquisition costs are identical at $8.9-billion. DND calculates sustainment costs will be $7.3-billion, while KPMG says $15.2-billion. On operating costs, DND estimates $9-billion, whereas the accountancy firm calculates $19.9-billion.

But the vast majority of those cost differences can be explained by the different time-scales used – DND’s costs are for a 20-year period, while KPMG fulfilled the mandate given it by the Auditor-General to give Canadians a full costing over the 42-year lifespan of the F-35s.

The conclusion that Canadians should draw is that it will cost them a little over $1-billion a year to operate a fleet of F-35s, according to both National Defence and KPMG.

Government sources are at pains to point out that the F-35 is still an option. “If we rule out the F-35, Boeing increases its prices by 15%,” said one person familiar with the procurement process.

I guess there is two sides to every story... Canada can buy and use 65 F-35s for 42 years for the cost of one years health care in a single province!! :woot.gif:/>

Edited December 8, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[ALF18]

That's part of the problem. The landing gear is most efficient at the initial point of landing where there is high velocity and high rate of strut closure. The impacts during taxiing are less than those encountered during landing and the strut orifices are so large that there is little or no damping from the landing gear while on the ground. Combine this with increasingly flexible airfames and you have increased fatigue damage from ground vibration.

Cheers

Actually, the USN uses aircraft fatigue life far differently than Canada or Australia for the Hornet.

I was the "Fatigue Life Management Program" Staff Officer at Fighter Group in the mid 90s, stationed with the plant in Mirabel where full-scale fatigue testing (destructive) was being carried out on an airframe, in a joint Canada-Australia program designed to identify weak points during service life, and design engineering fixes to keep the jets flying.

From when we first got the Hornet, it became clear we used it far differently than the USN. It's not just taxiing; it's the fact that the roles we used it in were somewhat different, and the airspace constraints as well. We flew a lot of low-level high speed missions around Europe, Bagotville, and Cold Lake. High IAS (420 to 510) in turbulence and with repeated high G turns at a couple hundred feet off the ground added up to lots of fatigue life expenditures per flight hour.

We did a lot of 1 vs 1 and 2 vs 2 simulated air combat. When the USN or USMC does this from a land base, they have to transit IFR (meaning benign flight profiles at lower speeds and no G application) to get to the training areas. They cannot fly hard for as long as Canadian or Aussie jets, because they need to keep sufficient fuel for an IFR recovery over what can be a significant distance to get home. A Canadian takes off, turns right or left, and within a few miles it's "fight's on". No IFR departure or recovery. More of the flight spent at high G levels, and more cycles on/off for the high load factors.

Early on, we realized that our Hornets were going to last about 50 to 60% of their predicted service life. We put in place a very agressive fatigue life management program, and that, coupled with hardware upgrades (like multi-million $ centre-barrel replacements), is what has allowed the fleet to survive as long as it has.

I am convinced that we will continue to use our fighter fleet hard, regardless of what jet it is.

ALF

Edited December 8, 2012 by ALF18

[Jennings]

...ALL of the SAME complaints about the F/A-18 when it was in the final stages of development.

There's a LOT of difference between an F-18 and an F-35. We're talking orders of magnitude in cost here.

[ALF18]

I have been following this debate over the years with considerable interest, as a former CF-18 pilot. While I don't think that anyone is deliberately indulging in cronyism, I do have a problem with the fact there is no way to know what the requirements are for a new fighter. How can anyone make an informed opinion of the pertinence of a purchase without being able to look at the requirements and comparing the attributes of the jet with them?

That's where I have a problem with all of this. Even if some requirements might be sensitive, they could still be expressed in unclassified terms and provide enough information that the government could then state they were fairly evaluating options.

I am of mixed opinions. On the one hand I am very concerned about how L-M and the US is maintaining a monopoly on training aircrew (meaning a loss of national ability to generate combat-ready crews, and also an indoctrination into the American way of flying and fighting that leaves no room for any innovation). Western Air Forces have been very successful because of the synergy obtained when pilots from different nations share and learn best practices; if everyone goes to the same school and is dictated how to execute every manoeuvre, right down to G warm-ups and in-flight checks, we will sadly lose some of that out-of-the-box thinking.

On the other hand, I am concerned about the loss of contracts for Canadian industry if we do indeed opt out of the program. Having worked for some industry giants over the years after I retired, I can say that the JSF program is critical to many companies.

One thing that Neu is saying is definitely true. Many of the stated costs have not really changed. What has changed is what costs are being considered, and over how long a period. That's one reason things appear to be spiraling out of control. It's not as bad as it looks. However, I am not yet ready to "drink the Kool-Aid" and believe the rosy picture that is being painted of projected availability and serviceability of the aircraft. I have never seen Canada properly "spare" an aircraft fleet; we will fall into the same old routine of robbing parts from hangar queens to keep the rest flying, and the longer logistics tail back to the mother ship in the US will just make that worse.

Whatever Canada does, it will cost us a lot of money. I just hope the government gets its act together; I know many of the senior military folks personally and have full faith in their honesty and integrity.

ALF

[DutyCat]

Luckily there is this big 700 billion dollar elephant in the room just to the south of 90 percent of canada's population, and its buying over 2,000 JSFs.

So basically - when it comes to defense....Canada = Slackers. They rely on the good ole USA when it comes right down to it.

Some of it is because of Canada's traditionally liberal politics. However, another way of looking at it is that Canada thinks that it is extremely unlikely that they will ever have to defend their nation from foreign threats. Therefor, all that is needed is a token force, one that can occasionally contribute in a limited way to multinational brush fires to gain experience and say they are a defense partner on the world stage.

Red Dawn might not be possible in the USA, but it might be in Canada.

Of course, if the USA was a pacifist nation and did not have the force structure that it does, most of our allies in Europe and elsewhere would have MUCH larger defense budgets.

Edited December 8, 2012 by DutyCat

[ALF18]

So basically - when it comes to defense....Canada = Slackers. They rely on the good ole USA when it comes right down to it.

Some of it is because of Canada's traditionally liberal politics. However, another way of looking at it is that Canada thinks that it is extremely unlikely that they will ever have to defend their nation from foreign threats. Therefor, all that is needed is a token force, one that can occasionally contribute in a limited way to multinational brush fires to gain experience and say they are a defense partner on the world stage.

Red Dawn might not be possible in the USA, but it might be in Canada.

I won't take offense, because I think there is some tongue-in-cheek tone there.

The reality is that we have 10% of what the US has, except for land mass. 10% of the population, GNP, budget, etc. Canada has always punched well above its weight when it comes to military commitments. By the end of WW II, we were the world's 4th largest allied air force. Not bad, when you look at how small a population we have.

You are right that we spend very little of our GNP on defence. Where you are wrong is when you call it a "token force." We have a very small but highly-trained and professional Air Force, Army, and Navy. Just ask some of your military folks that we have fought with in Afghanistan. Compared to the size of our combat arms, we sent a far higher percentage of combat troops there over more than a decade.

With our limited resources, we can't afford to maintain a vast armed forces. Part of that is the fact we are lucky enough to have a large friendly nation next door. But part of it is sheer economics and geography.

ALF

[DutyCat]

After all is this not how a capitalist system works? One of competition. What the Canadian govt. has done here and we do it as good as any other countries a'hole national govts. full of B.S. bureaucracy is to bureaucratize and make it look like favours are being done instead of having a proper and full competitive basis. Again even if F-35 appears to be the best for the RCAF it would LOOK MUCH BETTER to have it win in a full and fair competition!

My question on all of this is: Why would Canada,or any other nation go through the trouble of holding a competition when there is no competition? The USA already did that when they did X-35 vs X-32. All the performance and cost data is available. The F-35 is a next generation aircraft, clearly the best plane available for the foreseeable future. No, it is not cheap. Nothing good ever is. The only decision you have to make is whether you are willing to spend what it takes to buy, maintain, and operate a credible number of airframes. If you simply can't afford it, or are unwilling, then buy a cheaper alternative and live with the consequences of that decision. Nothing, not even the F-22, is going to beat the F-35 straight up when it comes to overall capability. The F-35 is the best jet, so all of this hand wringing and sighing is all about the politics and the money.

[Scooby]

I won't take offense, because I think there is some tongue-in-cheek tone there.

The reality is that we have 10% of what the US has, except for land mass. 10% of the population, GNP, budget, etc. Canada has always punched well above its weight when it comes to military commitments. By the end of WW II, we were the world's 4th largest allied air force. Not bad, when you look at how small a population we have.

You are right that we spend very little of our GNP on defence. Where you are wrong is when you call it a "token force." We have a very small but highly-trained and professional Air Force, Army, and Navy. Just ask some of your military folks that we have fought with in Afghanistan. Compared to the size of our combat arms, we sent a far higher percentage of combat troops there over more than a decade.

With our limited resources, we can't afford to maintain a vast armed forces. Part of that is the fact we are lucky enough to have a large friendly nation next door. But part of it is sheer economics and geography.

ALF

Dutycat has taken shots at us before. I don't think Canada as a nation has ever solely relied on the US military for assistance. Comments like his just shows his ignorance of our countries rich military history. We have always accomplished a lot with little. Vimy and Juno likely mean little to him if anything.

We had the smallest air element in the Balkan's conflict (24 Hornets,), yet we dropped 10% of the bombs.

[TaiidanTomcat]

There's a LOT of difference between an F-18 and an F-35. We're talking orders of magnitude in cost here.

I don't know how much it would cost to keep F-18E/Fs going for 42 years but the initial price tag according to that KPMG report is $88 million for the F-35 and according to wiki a 2012 hornet is $66.9 million (and it does NOT come with things like targeting pods that are built into the F-35) I would be very curious what a combat capable F-18 costs in 2013 or 2014.

Edited December 8, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[DutyCat]

I won't take offense, because I think there is some tongue-in-cheek tone there.

The reality is that we have 10% of what the US has, except for land mass. 10% of the population, GNP, budget, etc. Canada has always punched well above its weight when it comes to military commitments. By the end of WW II, we were the world's 4th largest allied air force. Not bad, when you look at how small a population we have.

You are right that we spend very little of our GNP on defence. Where you are wrong is when you call it a "token force." We have a very small but highly-trained and professional Air Force, Army, and Navy. Just ask some of your military folks that we have fought with in Afghanistan. Compared to the size of our combat arms, we sent a far higher percentage of combat troops there over more than a decade.

With our limited resources, we can't afford to maintain a vast armed forces. Part of that is the fact we are lucky enough to have a large friendly nation next door. But part of it is sheer economics and geography.

ALF

WWII contributions are notable and very much recognized and appreciated. I was commenting on today's political climate.

I completely understand the population and financial demographics. However, even in consideration of that... Canada seems to be way under spending on defense. 65 jets? Really? That is a long way from "vast."

But that is the reality of your politics.