Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24405
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 04:44

eagle3000 wrote:
optimist wrote:I don't even think there are FA-18 exchange pilots or WSO from those nations on the boats.


There are, or rather, there were, since the USN is largely out of the legacy Hornet business.
Here's a report about a Swiss exchange pilot (video is in German). [yutube]borked[/yutube]

Heres the story from 2010 in SwytzerDeutschEngrish:
Foreign Pilots Train Aboard Enterprise
19 Jul 2020 USN

"ATLANTIC OCEAN (NNS) -- Three foreign pilots with the "Gladiators" of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 106 landed aboard the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65) July 15 as part of a pilot exchange program during the ship's fleet replacement squadron carrier qualifications....

..."I'm here in the U.S. as part of a pilot exchange program between the Swiss Air Force and the U.S. Navy," said Capt. Ralph Iseli, a native of Beringen, Kt. Schaffhausen, Switzerland. "When I heard I was coming here, I was really excited.

"It's an amazing opportunity to come to a carrier - the Swiss Navy does not have them," said Iseli. "I get to watch the ship perform carrier qualifications and tactics, something I would never have the opportunity to see in the Swiss Air Force."

Iseli explained that there is always an exchange of pilots taking place between countries, ensuring the U.S. and its allies are trained in as many different skills as possible.

In Switzerland, Iseli said that some of his duties included training new pilots as well. "There are three squadrons in Switzerland, and because of that it means all the pilots must train the newer ones to become fully qualified," said Iseli. "I think the more experience I gain here, the better I can train those young pilots."

Iseli is gaining valuable experience to take back to Switzerland and pass on. "Trapping [aircraft] on an aircraft carrier never gets old," said Iseli. "It's truly a once-in-a-lifetime experience to train on an aircraft carrier." Also training with the "Gladiators" are Lt. Ben Hullah and Lt. Stephan Collins of Great Britain....

...The pilot exchange program is just one tactic in the Department of Defense's overall strategy to maximize interoperability in a global war fighting environment. Today, more than ever, the United States and its allies train and fight together in a multinational environment. The pilot exchange program is a critical part of ensuring that everyone can communicate effectively and execute the mission, no matter where the battlefield is or where the war fighters come from...."

My broken humurus Graphic: ENTERPRISE DECKED OUT FOR Schwytzer Pilotes SANS mountains but plenty of SAND TRAPS. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e3/68/9d ... 94992d.jpg


Source: https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=54732
Attachments
e3689da4eb90011105e1836e3094992d.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2691
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 16:39

spazsinbad wrote:I do not recall any Canadians of any political weight being interested in Mistrals.


Here:
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... f-election

Canada was actively pursuing — at the political level — the possible acquisition of the controversial French-built Mistral-class helicopter carriers, several defence, diplomatic and military industry sources have told Murray Brewster of The Canadian Press.



And then there's also this:
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national ... -the-table
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 223
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 16:48

If anyone thinks a fighter program will happen after all this is kidding themselves.

Trudeau unveils $82B COVID-19 emergency response package for Canadians, businesses
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/econom ... -1.5501037

So easy to hand out money in a socialist government..
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2691
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 17:17

weasel1962 wrote:Just browsed the Canadian national shipbuilding program. 0% interest in a LHA.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/a ... x-eng.html



I would say that doesn't mean much.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy is about ships to be built in Canada. The LHA's considered at some point by Canada would always be build/purchased abroad and as such not part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2691
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 17:28

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Icy arctic runway? meet 1,000 deg jet plume. Don't need a parachute if you are never faster than 50kt at touchdown.


Well, of course that in order to operate F-35B's from something like CFS Alert, modifications must be made on the runway and/or surrounding areas.
For starters and in the case of CFS Alert, building an Hangar.
Then and in case the F-35B's were to operate from there (CFS Alert) then apply steel planking on the areas where they would land vertically.
Anyway (and I could be wrong) but I see the F-35B as being one of the only fighter aircraft that could operate on such remote and relatively short and icy runways.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24405
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 18:33

"...Then and in case the F-35B's were to operate from there (CFS Alert) then apply steel planking on the areas where they would land vertically...."

There are many articles in this forum about 'the F-35B will land vertically only aboard flat deck ships at sea'. Naturally special concrete LONG LASTING PRACTICE PADS for these flat deck ship VLs will be built ashore but that is it. Otherwise the STOVL F-35B has a zillion OTHER landing options depending upon whatever is available ashore. From creeping vertical landings to conventional landings and anything in-between when in STOVL Mode 4. This URL no longer works - patience:
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/06/07/lockh ... -vertical/ GO HERE FOR THE BEER:

Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical Philip Ewing 07 Jun 2011
viewtopic.php?t=15671
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2691
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 21:03

spazsinbad wrote:Lockheed: Many F-35B landings won’t be vertical Philip Ewing 07 Jun 2011
viewtopic.php?t=15671


Yes, I understand that. But even such "non-vertical" F-35B landings will take/need much, much less space compared to any other aircraft, right?
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24405
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 21:57

Correct. Think from the opposite direction. Depending upon circumstances the STOVL Mode 4 landing will be within the limitations of the landing area including the weather. IF portable JPALS provided then a good approach will be possible.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

pushoksti

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 223
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2008, 04:50
  • Location: Canadar

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 22:50

ricnunes wrote:but I see the F-35B as being one of the only fighter aircraft that could operate on such remote and relatively short and icy runways.


Our CF-18s operated in Inuvik just fine. You know what we did with icy runways? We cleaned them. If it's really bad then they land using the cable. Problem solved.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2691
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post21 Mar 2020, 23:53

pushoksti wrote:
ricnunes wrote:but I see the F-35B as being one of the only fighter aircraft that could operate on such remote and relatively short and icy runways.


Our CF-18s operated in Inuvik just fine. You know what we did with icy runways? We cleaned them. If it's really bad then they land using the cable. Problem solved.



Yes, that makes sense as well.

I was just trying to make a case for the F-35B for Canada although I'm well aware that Canada will end up going with a full F-35A purchase.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2260
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post22 Mar 2020, 01:13

A: been there, done that.
viewtopic.php?f=60&t=16480&start=180
Offline

commisar

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2018, 21:56

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 03:54

mixelflick wrote:Writing may be on the wall for all of USN aviation: They're talking about cutting 6 of 10 planned Ford class carriers. The scuttlebut is that they're looking at "other classes" (smaller) carriers and that means.... probably more F-35B's. Perhaps even some for the Navy vs. Marines.

I sincerely hope F/A-XX is going to happen, but this isnt' a good sign. SLEPing SH's to Block III and building new F-35C's is probably the right move, but neither allows them to operate 1,000 miles from shore. With tanking? OK, maybe. But in the absence of a heavy stealth tanker.. probably not do-able. Standoff weapons will help, but I don't think they're the entire solution.

With fewer supercarriers to protect, F/A-XX could have a big problem justifying its existence.


I HIGHLY doubt the USN will EVER accept a reduction of Supercarrier numbers.

A smaller carrier for the USN just doesn't make sense, and even if we needed one, a LHD/LHA design is already in production.

The USMC just decided to make themselves almost irrelevant a week ago with fewer of everything except UCAVs that don't exist....

As for Canada, they'll eventually order F-35s, probably after 2022 or so.
Offline

notam123

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 15 Jan 2020, 12:59

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 14:11

Dassault has withdrawn from the competition, it's not an option. It can't meet the specifications.

Definitely withdraw. Some NORAD specifications about EW suite "can opening" Dassault and Thalès did not want to accept.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6640
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post30 Mar 2020, 01:42

There is no political support to cut the number of USN Aircraft Carriers. Nor, within the Navy Leadership. So, who is pushing this narrative???

:?
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 959
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post07 Apr 2020, 14:04

I just had another look at this one:

https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/2 ... a_FWeb.pdf

Some things I did not really pay attention to the first time I looked at it:

1. Capability gap:
One of the ironies of the interim purchase of the Super Hornets was how it was unconnected to any actual military requirement, at least at first. Rather, the purchase seemed to better fit the Liberals’ political desire to avoid purchasing the F-35, despite the lack of any actual operational or strategic necessity for the purchase of a separate interim fleet. Buying the interim Super Hornets would also give them the ability to announce a bevy of new industrial contracts with that aircraft’s manufacturer, Boeing. They would need to construct the narrative, as journalists Lee Berthiaume and John Ivison (2016) have discussed:

The Liberal government is intent on buying Super Hornet fighter jets, according to multiple sources. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet reportedly discussed the issue last week, and while no formal decision was taken, one top-level official said: “They have made up their minds and are working on the right narrative to support it.”

The narrative they decided upon was the “capability gap.” Rather than focus on the need to meet the current level of capability, and the realistic measures the government would take to address such shortfalls by an increase in the CF-18’s operations and management budget, the Liberal narrative was more expansive: their gap referred to the situation where the RCAF had insufficient aircraft and aircrew available day-to-day to meet the country’s full NORAD and NATO commitments simultaneously.

It seems this is the reason why the requirement was shifted from 65 a/c to 88 a/c...

2. Technical requirements:
Government representatives broadly outlined their requirements for the project, which reflected the compromises it had to make in order to have a plausible attempt at a competition. This became immediately evident from the sections focusing on capability. The RCAF was pressured to shift many of its previously mandatory requirements to a rated scale, while in other areas it was prohibited from updating the pre-2012 requirements statements to modern standards (Confidential interview with the author). As far as the public services were concerned, these restrictions allowed less capable aircraft to participate in the competition and also made them more competitive against the F-35. It also artificially compressed the ratings in some cases in order to minimize the operational advantage of the most capable aircraft.
[...]
Another challenge was a mandatory-range requirement. The most demanding mission CF-18s are called upon to conduct is a flight from Cold Lake, Alberta, to the Forward Operating Location of Inuvik in the Northwest Territories. However, in order to operate safely, the aircraft must be able to approach Inuvik to ascertain the state of the runway in bad weather, then divert to Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska (Canada 2018b, 15). CF-18s cannot undertake this mission without US aerial refuelling, and the unavailability of that resource has led to the scrubbing of several interceptions. Consequently, the RCAF called for its next generation fighter to be able to undertake this mission without aerial refuelling in order to increase its overall capability. The F-35 and the Eurofighter have both demonstrated that they can make this 1,451 nautical miles trip, which includes a significant altitude change, while carrying four missiles. But such a requirement is challenging, if not impossible, for the other competitors.1 However, a recent change that expanded the physical size of the Canadian Air Defence Identification Zone was also conveniently excluded from this requirement (Government of Canada 2017; Confidential interview with the author).


3. FMS overhead:
In order to sweeten the pot for JSF participant countries, the United States offered several significant concessions. The first was that they would obtain aircraft and sustainment services and equipment at the same cost as the US government. Normally, jurisdictions outside the United States go through the Foreign Military Sales process, where the US government approves and then brokers the purchase. This process tends to increase the cost of the program by as much as 30 percent when research and administrative fees are charged to the purchaser (Defense Security Cooperation Agency 2019). Later capability upgrades come at additional expense. JSF partners would avoid all of those costs. They would, however, be required to share in the research and development costs, which for Canada was assessed to be $552 million in 2013, spread out over the development period (Canada, Department of National Defence 2013, 11).

Is FMS really up to 30%??? Sounds like a lot!

Anyway, my takeaways:
1. This is highly political process, and the main focus is on politics, costs, and industrial offsets, not technical capabilities (I guess most of us knew that already).

2. The competition seems a bit more open than what I believed it to be.

3. The large number of a/c is still puzzling to me -- politicians often change their minds about things so it is not clear to me why they still keep the number at 88.

I am guessing one of two will happen:

A. The number is reduced back to 65 (or even lower??), and they go for F-35.
B.They stick to 88, and buy a small (30-ish) fleet of F-35, and another 50-something of a second a/c with lower operating costs, this will cost more but produce the maximum industrial benefits, both from F-35 and the second new a/c.

Will be interesting to see how COVID-19 will affect this...
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests