Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Last edited by spazsinbad on Jun 22, 2010 - 11:22 PM; edited 3 times in total

Canada to purchase 65 U.S. stealth fighter aircraft Thomas Posyniak Posted: Jun 21st, 2010

[EDIT: Author is a blogger - I had mistaken the page for a 'news report'. OOPS]

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/ ... r-aircraft

"Canada will soon join the ranks of 21st century military aviation. The Federal Government announced that it will purchase 65 new F-35 Lightning II's to replace the aging, multi-role workhorse of the Canadian Forces Air Command, the CF-18/A Hornet. This decision, to an untrained observer, may seem to be just part and parcel with the otherwise dull and innocuous process of military procurement.

In reality, it is perhaps the most expensive military purchase by the Canadian government for a single weapon system in the history of this country. The Department of National Defence (DND) will be outlaying, all told, $16 billion for the aircraft. Consider that Canada's defence budget is something like $21 billion. Now, the procurement and payment process will not occur in one swoop of course. Nevertheless, it is a staggering number.

Is Canada getting a good deal here?

Should the federal government wait and see what cheaper alternatives are out there?

Yes, and no.

The F-35 Lightning II was the product of a defence procurement project by the U.S. department of defence in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The Joint Strike Fighter program was, and remains, one of the largest defence procurement projects even for the Americans for a single weapon system. It involved an intense head to head competition between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, some of the U.S.'s largest defence contractors. Boeing advanced its X-32 fighter - a Delta Wing multi-role fighter; Lockheed-Martin put forth the X-35 Lightning II, the eventual winner. The result of this competition produced two peerless multi-role stealth fighters for the the U.S. military, with the X-32 being jettisoned.

It is the "joint" that has the greatest benefit for Canada. The project is "joint" in a number of respects. First, on a strictly technical level, the fighters themselves contain the peak of battlefield awareness technology and advanced avionics. Coupled with now mastered stealth technology (the ability to deflect radar and contain heat signatures), they are a lethal threat to both air-to-air and air-to-ground targets.

Second, the project is a 'joint' consortium of several defence contractors. Lockheed-Martin is the lead contractor, but Northrop Grumman and Britain's BAE Systems also are substantial contributors.

Third, the JSF project, writ large, is an international project. North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations, including Canada, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Norway are all committed partners. Non-NATO nations too have joined. Australia has committed itself, while Israel and Japan are expressing interest.

In no small way then, the F-35 Lightning II will be the "flagship" of the Atlantic Alliance, and perhaps, the larger Western community. It is particularly heartening to see the U.S. share its once jealously guarded monopoly on stealth technology with its allies. The result of all this is that the F-35 is, in and of itself, the stand-alone weapon system for the 21st century.

The promise of the vaunted F-22 Raptor fell to financial constraints. Now, it is the F-35 that major defence contractors and wealthy, connected NATO allies will be relying on. In this case, from the perspective of long term defence interoperability with U.S. and NATO forces, (the ability to integrate military systems and replace weapons) the F-35 is the obvious choice.

Despite this, some in Ottawa and the defence community are questioning the government's decision to award the largest defence contract in Canadian history without a normal tendering process, and consider potential alternatives. There is, however, merit to the government's claim that only the F-35 met its qualifications for a replacement, multi-role fighter aircraft. Despite the Boeing corporation's attempt to sow seeds of doubt, the government picked a program on solid ground, and can safely claim the alternatives simply do not stack up, both in terms of technical specifics and the needs of the Canadian Forces.

Breifly, there are a handful of alternative fighter aircrafts in the world that are the F-35's competitors.

First, there is the latest generation of F-18 Hornets - the F-18/E/F/G editions. Essentially, these are upgraded versions of Canada's CF-18/A's and B's. These will serve alongside the F-35 in the U.S. military, and are, to be sure, the most proven production fighter aircraft in the world. That said, these aircraft are not stealth capable. They are, moreover, running on a platform - an engine system - that is going on twenty years old. When the U.S. military decided to test its F-22 against these F-18s, a single F-22 stealth fighter shot down (in a simulation) 6 F-18s without the F-18s even knowing the location of the F-22. While the F-35 isn't the "air-supremacy" fighter plane that the 22 is, it nonetheless uses the same stealth technology, and is a more-than-capable fighter-interceptor. In the end, Canada would be paying a similar multi-billion dollar contract for dated technology.

Then there is the Eurofighter Typhoon, a product of a joint European defence project (Britain again, Germany, Spain, Austria, and Italy). It is another multi-role aircraft. However, it again lacks stealth technology. And while advertised as multi-role aircraft, it seems to slide closer towards the air-to-air defence role. In any case, adopting the Euro-fighter would not likely save Canada any money.

We would lose the backing of the largest defence contractors in the world - meaning when our planes literally hit the fan, we cannot just order replacements from across the border, but rather, from Germany and the UK. The Euro-fighter has also been mired in delays, and has not made great strides to exporting the technology outside the EU. Whatever savings shaved off would be picked up by logistical costs.

Then there's the Russians. The Russian aviation industry has a proud tradition. The Suhkoi line of air-craft are the F-35's direct challengers and potential future adversaries. But, realistically, other than making anti-American Canadians feel placated, adopting say the Suhkoi Su-37 Flanker would have little practical benefit. Russia is potentially short of money for future development and technological support. Canada and Russian have almost no history of defence sharing. It would also be an open-palmed slapped to the face of our American allies, who have generously shared some of their best technology. Russian equipment would also be inoperable with our Canadian and U.S. built systems, at least before great renovations. This is not a serious alternative.

Thus, while it would have been nice to have an Dutch auction, where all the bidders attempt to lower their prices in a mad scramble to get their plane accepted, the reality is that Canada would probably not have saved all that much money. In this case, we could have ended up saddled with an inferior aircraft and, at the same time, disappointed our American and NATO allies. Indeed, trying to squeeze out money during this process would inject delay's into a procurement process that already takes decades.

The F-35s are not scheduled to enter regular service for at least seven years. Canada is getting perhaps the best deal it could hope for. Canada needs an aircraft that can not only streak north at supersonic speeds to intercept Russian northern probes, but also an advanced fighter bomber. It needs to be able to do so while working closely with both U.S. and NATO forces. The CF-35 will do all that, and more, while nearly invisible to most defensive systems. Its competitors cannot match its technical merits and its the quality of its investors. It behooves Canada then to follow through with his project."

F-16.net Sponsor

Nothing official yet.

Ottawa set to make announcement on Friday By DAVID PUGLIESE, Canwest News Service July 12, 2010

http://www.montrealgazette.com/technolo ... story.html

"The Harper government is gearing up for more multibillion-dollar announcements on military equipment spending: one for a controversial purchase of new fighter aircraft, the other a re-announcement of a project that was derailed two years ago.

Department of National Defence officials are preparing for an announcement next Friday on a new fighter aircraft, a project estimated to cost $16 billion.

Sources say since the purchase and its price tag are seen as potentially controversial, the government planned the announcement when Parliament wasn't sitting and public interest would be at its lowest because of summer holidays.

The Joint Strike Fighter, a stealth plane built by U.S. aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, is considered the top contender.

DND has continued to say that no decision on a fighter aircraft replacement has been made. In May, Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced in the Commons that Canada would buy the Joint Strike Fighter; he later backtracked, stating that a competition for a new aircraft would be held. That position, however, was also undercut a day later by the Defence Department, which stated that no decision on whether a competition would be held had yet been made.

Opposition party parliamentarians remain unconvinced of the need for the new planes, noting that the government recently spent $2.6 billion on Canada's current fleet of CF-18s. The last of the upgraded CF-18s was delivered in March. MPs are concerned about the cost of a new fighter purchase.

Canada plans to buy 65 fighters. In April, Colonel Randy Meiklejohn, of the directorate of aerospace requirements, told a gathering of industry representatives in Ottawa that the cost of the new jet project would be about $9 billion. But new reports indicate the total price would jump to $16 billion, when 20 years of in-service support and other costs are included.

Previously, air force officers voiced concern that the planes might be seen as airborne Cadillacs because of their hefty price tag, according to documents obtained by the Ottawa Citizen.

To counter that label -a reference to Liberal leader Jean Chretien's description of the $5-billion EH-101 helicopter project just before he cancelled it after being elected prime minister -the officers argued in a 2006 briefing note that the Joint Strike Fighter was the most affordable replacement available for the existing fleet of jets.

Also being planned for as early as next week is a re-announcement that the Joint Support Ship program will be restarted. The JSS project has been announced before but went on hold in 2008 when bids from various companies were disqualified as being too expensive.

"The Joint Support Ship project is in the definition phase and recommendations regarding the next phase of the project will be brought to government as soon as they're complete," said Jocelyn Sweet, a Defence Department spokeswoman.

Three new ships would replace Canada's existing 40-year-old supply vessels, which haul fuel and ammunition for naval task groups at sea."

It's all good:

Canada Announces Purchase of 65 F35 Joint Strike Fighters By Karl Gotthardt Ottawa : Canada | Jul 16, 2010

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-ne ... e-fighters

"Canadian Minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay, announced this morning the plan to purchase 65 F35 Joint Strike Fighters.

This purchase constitutes the largest military purchase in history.

The new fighter aircraft would replace the current fleet of CF-18s starting in 2017. Those fighters were reportedly recently upgraded at a cost of $2.6-billion.

Peter MacKay said that the cost of acquisiton woud be $9 Billion. Peter McKay said that the $9 Billion is the cost for 65 aircraft with all its on board equipment. The main stream media however, is publishing $16 Billion, which is what the Liberal Party suggests.

Liberal critics have estimated the total cost at around $16 Billion with inclusion of the in service support costs. The government says that those costs will still have to be negotiated. This is when Canadian industry can compete.

Marc Garneau suggests that the government risks wasting taxpayers money.

Marc Garneau, spokesman for the Liberal Party’s industry and science issues, told reporters that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government may be poised to announce the F-35 purchase without seeking bids from competing firms, citing media reports. He said the contract risks wasting billions of taxpayers’ dollars.

Peter MacKay called the Liberals Hypocrites, since they started working toward that deal back in 2000 and had invested money to get the F35.

Canadians should recall the helicopter deal reached by Brian Mulroney and then canceled by Jean Chretien just to see the acquisition double. Let's not make the same mistake again."

Made big news on TV here yesterday.

Hearing some of the critics, one almost gets the sense that jobs creation (especially maintenance contracts for the prov. of Quebec) is as much a driving force for this deal as is the ligitimate defence/military needs.

If the $9 billion (sans service) figure is true, that would put the unit cost at around $138M CAD... For a SINGLE engine fighter??? Rolling Eyes

Sorry, but that is just too large a pill to swallow. Canada opted for the Hornet over the F-16 largely for that reason. The Great North is still pretty barren last I heard. So what gives? Even if the F135 is ultra-super-super-mega-with-a-cherry-on-top reliable, big birds can still do nasty thing to even the best/biggest/most reliable engines (re. Flight 1549). Geese have been known to fly at well over 20k ft. Lose "THE" engine in an F-35 over the middle of Nunavut, and your options are severely limited. Lose AN engine in the CF-18, and odds are fairly good you'll be able to limp back home.

Anyways, as it stands over $2 billion was recently spent on our aging Hornets to bring them up to speed. They should be good for another 7-8 years. So why the big rush to seal this deal?... And given Canada's "job" in the world scene (militarily speaking), do we REALLY need a full-on "stealth" fighter?

Maintaining 65 single engine aircraft and losing one or two over the course of 30 years may be cheaper than maintaining 65 twin engine aircraft for 30 years and losing none. That $138 mil price tag would include all infrastructure that comes with a fleet of new aircraft. The USN must have done the maths on this or they wouldn't have agreed to it either.

Given the increasing ranges of future generations of radars and missiles, LO will be needed to stay ahead.

munny wrote:

Maintaining 65 single engine aircraft and losing one or two over the course of 30 years may be cheaper than maintaining 65 twin engine aircraft for 30 years and losing none.

And here I was thinking about giving a pilot the best odds of not having to punch out over water, hostile terrain, or worse, enemy territory.

munny wrote:

That $138 mil price tag would include all infrastructure that comes with a fleet of new aircraft.

Total acquisition cost, incl. service/support, will be ~$16 billion CAD. That's $246M per plane.

munny wrote:

The USN must have done the maths on this or they wouldn't have agreed to it either.

Given the choice, I'm sure the Navy would rather have an NATF instead.

munny wrote:

Given the increasing ranges of future generations of radars and missiles, LO will be needed to stay ahead.

"LO," yes... "VLO??" Debatable. What possible future threat might Canada face that would necessitate an air force of 65 5th gen. VLO fighters to counter? It doesn't make sense. Our CAF's primary role is to defend CANADIAN airspace, not to serve as "reserve assets" for whatever war(s) the US is involved in. The US is in effect getting an extra 65 F-35's at the expense of us Canadian taxpayers.

em745 wrote:

munny wrote:

Maintaining 65 single engine aircraft and losing one or two over the course of 30 years may be cheaper than maintaining 65 twin engine aircraft for 30 years and losing none.

And here I was thinking about giving a pilot the best odds of not having to punch out over water, hostile terrain, or worse, enemy territory.

munny wrote:

That $138 mil price tag would include all infrastructure that comes with a fleet of new aircraft.

Total acquisition cost, incl. service/support, will be ~$16 billion CAD. That's $246M per plane.

munny wrote:

The USN must have done the maths on this or they wouldn't have agreed to it either.

Given the choice, I'm sure the Navy would rather have an NATF instead.

munny wrote:

Given the increasing ranges of future generations of radars and missiles, LO will be needed to stay ahead.

"LO," yes... "VLO??" Debatable. What possible future threat might Canada face that would necessitate an air force of 65 5th gen. VLO fighters to counter? It doesn't make sense. Our CAF's primary role is to defend CANADIAN airspace, not to serve as "reserve assets" for whatever war(s) the US is involved in. The US is in effect getting an extra 65 F-35's at the expense of us Canadian taxpayers.

As a fellow Canadian I agree. You don't go to a party with just a beer in hand. It's poor manners. But you don't have to bring a keg when a six pack will do. This is just our nation hoping to get a part in America's latest incarnation from their industrial/military complex. Very little to do with our military needs.

For that kind of money you could bring back the CF-105. Eh?

OL

em745 wrote:

"LO," yes... "VLO??" Debatable. What possible future threat might Canada face that would necessitate an air force of 65 5th gen. VLO fighters to counter? It doesn't make sense. Our CAF's primary role is to defend CANADIAN airspace, not to serve as "reserve assets" for whatever war(s) the US is involved in. The US is in effect getting an extra 65 F-35's at the expense of us Canadian taxpayers.

Even an upgraded FA-18 will be pretty irrelevant to the capabilities the F-35s new integrated sensor suite will bring. Seriously I cant imagine a single RCAF member is sitting there thinking we dont need to get trained up on modern warfare tactics and technology - wouldnt be much of an airforce if it was.

Jeez - as a pilot you want to be trained on and turning up in the best you can get - and they might be sent to other conflicts regardless of what you want or think.

I can imagine them now thinking - "I would much prefer a more even fight so lets keep the legacy FA-18s guys" Laughing

em745 wrote:

munny wrote:

Maintaining 65 single engine aircraft and losing one or two over the course of 30 years may be cheaper than maintaining 65 twin engine aircraft for 30 years and losing none.

And here I was thinking about giving a pilot the best odds of not having to punch out over water, hostile terrain, or worse, enemy territory.

munny wrote:

That $138 mil price tag would include all infrastructure that comes with a fleet of new aircraft.

Total acquisition cost, incl. service/support, will be ~$16 billion CAD. That's $246M per plane.

munny wrote:

The USN must have done the maths on this or they wouldn't have agreed to it either.

Given the choice, I'm sure the Navy would rather have an NATF instead.

munny wrote:

Given the increasing ranges of future generations of radars and missiles, LO will be needed to stay ahead.

"LO," yes... "VLO??" Debatable. What possible future threat might Canada face that would necessitate an air force of 65 5th gen. VLO fighters to counter? It doesn't make sense. Our CAF's primary role is to defend CANADIAN airspace, not to serve as "reserve assets" for whatever war(s) the US is involved in. The US is in effect getting an extra 65 F-35's at the expense of us Canadian taxpayers.

You talk about your concern for the pilots, yet you don't think they deserve the F-35. The F-35 avionics suite and VLO capabilities will give them a much better chance of survival in a war environment than anything on the market. If you care about your pilots coming home, give them F-35's. Otherwise they will be used as SAM practice way before their engine decides to puke.

Canada Selects Lockheed Martin F-35 For Next-Generation Fighter

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/pres ... s-f35.html

"FORT WORTH, Texas, July 16th, 2010 -- The Government of Canada today announced plans to acquire the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II as the country’s next-generation fighter aircraft. The F-35 will replace Canada’s fleet of CF-18 Hornets that entered service in the early 1980s.

“We’re very pleased with the decision and are committed to supporting the Government of Canada in moving forward with the F-35,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president and general manager of F-35 Program Integration. “The Lightning II will help ensure Canada’s national security, and also positions Canadian industry to immediately capture long-term work that will endure for the next 30 years.”

The F-35 is a supersonic, multi-role, 5th generation stealth fighter developed and funded by a consortium of nine countries, including Canada. It is designed to excel in both air-to-air and air-to-ground operations and features the most comprehensive and powerful avionics of any fighter ever produced. Canada plans to acquire 65 F-35s to replace the CF-18 fleet that is currently in service. Delivery of Canada’s F-35s will begin in 2016."

em745 wrote:

What possible future threat might Canada face that would necessitate an air force of 65 5th gen. VLO fighters to counter?

Exactly the same threat that it bought F-18's for?

flighthawk wrote:

Even an upgraded FA-18 will be pretty irrelevant to the capabilities the F-35s new integrated sensor suite will bring.

And what are those "capabilities" that CANADA (NOT the US) is in dire need of?? Again, it all comes down to what CANADA (AS A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY, NOT AS THE 51st US STATE) realistically needs in order to defend its airspace. If Canada had a North Korea, or a Russia or a China along its borders... or if we regularly took it upon ourselves to be the "world's police," then I'd be all for it. But that isn't the case, is it.

Canada has never needed more than an interceptor to escort the odd Bear and to provide support for our ground troups abroad. You don't need a first-strike stealth fighter to do that. The legacy Hornet did that job well, and the Shornet would do it equally well now.

Look, I'm not anti progess or anti tech, if that's what you're thinking. I LOVE the F-22. IMO It's a jet the USAF desperately needs more of in order maintain its air dominance. That said, were it available for export, I WOULD NOT WANT CANADA TO CONSIDER IT EITHER BECAUSE WE HAVE NO NEED FOR IT (even if it is twin-engined).

And honestly, are the avionics/ECM/radar suites in current gen. 4.5's really that ancient? You don't see the USN looking to replace ALL its Shornets with the F-35, do you?

LMAggie wrote:

The F-35 avionics suite and VLO capabilities will give them a much better chance of survival in a war environment than anything on the market. If you care about your pilots coming home, give them F-35's. Otherwise they will be used as SAM practice way before their engine decides to puke.

Again, what possible scenario would require our pilots to go into SAM-infested territory in order to defend CANADIAN interests? If the US needs more assets to do that particular job, they can purchase it themselves instead of putting the financial burden on its "allies."

Australia just purchased 24 Super Hornets with support etc. for $6billion. So thats roughly 72 Supers for $18billion. Give me 65 F35's for $16billion anyday.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Canada Buys 65 F-35 [edit: OOPS - False Alarm - My Bad]