via The Record.com
Somewhere in Ottawa, unknown to the outside world, there is a black hole — a secret place where the government consigns toxic ideas, ideas that it dares not implement, yet cannot bring itself to kill.I've said it before and I'll say it again. Critics of the F-35 should have focused like a laser on the airplanes costs.
The F-35 fighter jet is one such idea. The Harper government has been grappling with it ever since it took office in 2006. It has heard from experts that the super-sophisticated F-35 is not the right plane; that it does not suit Canada's modest military requirements; that its single engine makes it too dangerous for patrols across the country's vast distances; and that its humongous cost — $45 billion or more for 65 aircraft — puts it well beyond the reach of the budget-conscious Conservatives.
Somehow the F-35 has managed to survive on the government's to-do list, never categorically endorsed, but also never firmly rejected. This June, it surfaced on the cabinet's agenda for a decision. To his credit, the prime minister removed the item from the agenda, ostensibly to give ministers more time to weigh the implications. So the F-35 went back into that black hole.
298 Billion dollars has been spent on this flying clusterfuck and its still in development!
The death spiral will arrive because the US and its allies will not be able to buy enough, fast enough to "push the cost curve down". Additionally, you can expect a crash program to develop a 6th gen fighter to come out of the shadows and take center stage when development continues to drag on.
This plane is the walking dead. We just need Rick to shoot it the face so the disease can't spread.
Watching it land on a 6000ft runway in the cold with slight runway contamination should be entertaining.
ReplyDeleteSee "F-35 and Canada: Good for “Discretionary” Missions, But…"
ReplyDeletehttp://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/08/11/mark-collins-f-35-and-canada-good-for-discretionary-missions-but/
Mark
Ottawa
With Canada's vast borders to control and all those Artic Resources a long range Sukhoi 30 with external fuel tanks for extended range seems perfect only if it werent a Russian aircraft.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knows that the Canadians arent going to war independantly, they will always buddy up with the US and other anglosphere countries, maybe even France for their warfare. That should afford them the luxury of not buying the F-35.
Lots of good discussion going on at http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.ca/
ReplyDeleteSeems that the clear consensus is that the F-35 is definitely the Worst Fighter For Canada.
It mystifies most of us (Canadians) how this dead stick aircraft can still be alive, or at least in zombie status with the gov't. It has been time to move on for at least a couple years. At a minimum a split buy or immediate interim buy orf something else should have happened by now. There are plenty of quality gen 4.5+ aircraft out there to purchase. Not only that but I doubt "stealth" will ever be more than a niche military tactic. I would place money on electronic warfare, jamming, blinding the enemy and cooperative drone strike tactics via manned aircraft long before I think there will be thousands of stealth aircraft. Cooperative drone strike = Advanced F-18 controlling a number of XB-47s.
Stealth is a scam (see many comments by Pierre Sprey), when the enemy has the right radar over multiple radar bands including some of the latest array designs this plane will not be able to hide. Then there is the whole IRST debate where defending aircraft can pick up the IR sig of the supposed stealth aircraft.
Why Canada, a country that would never go to war without joint anglo-shpere involvement thinks it needs an F-35 is beyond me. Many other good choices out there.
X47B can carry at most 2x2000IB JDAM, but will probably be less, and do so within the range of many point-defence SAMS due to low-flying altitude, while the plane itself will probably still cost a considerable amount of money and provide less bombs per $ downrange over a given period of time than a proper strike-fighter would, while contributing none of the Air-Air capabilities.
DeleteThe F15 demonstrator was during the cold war, loaded up with almost two dozen 500IB bombs and sidewinders, and flown to the UK, to demonstrate its prowess as a bombtruck, for which despite its differences was a fine replacement for the F111 which was an absolute bomb-truck.
What is needed is a serious investment in as you say electronic warfare, should consider upgrading and refurbishing existing F18s, and procuring SEED munitions, HARMs, MALDS, JASMs, Cruise missiles (with radar tracking warheads), JDAM-ER, powered JDAM-ERs, Brimstones, etc..etc.. and more AWACs, and tankers.
I would say increase F18s and buy SU34s, but I don't think that is going to happened...
@Canuck Fighter
DeleteI don't know how good can be that blog when the Swedish can say anything against me, including adjectives, and when I just saw "you Swedish are so overrated that you believe you invented the wheel" the author of the Blog ban me. I can't post any more in that blog. It seems like a blog created to promote the Gripen.
BTW, the last 2 nights an helicopter pass by 4 times exactly over my house here in Calgary, at very low level, no kidding.Maybe I'm defending too much the idea of the Advanced Super Hornet for Canada and somebody is not happy. I don't want to be paranoic but I'm thinking to publish my real name just in case.
There definitely is a Gripen bias on that blog, however there has been lots of good discussion on all the alternative aircraft. Your point on the ASH F-18 are solid, it's a good aircraft. For the money, Canada can't go wrong. Is it the right aircraft? Hard to say because the RCAF can even define what the future mission is.
Delete@Jacobite
DeleteThe SU34 seems like a fine aircraft so far. However, no western air force is going to buy Russian at this point. It was unlikely before, it's total no-go now. The best available western aircraft for range, speed, and bomb load would be the latest F-15 technology.
A some point, some innovative airforce officer has to propose a wild weasel F-15 or a growler F-15 model.
@Canuck Fighter
DeleteNow they know I've being banned from the Best Fighter For Canada, the Swedish start answer my old comments knowing I can't answer any more. even accusing me of Troll.
I though they were more classy. Could you make me a big favour? could you tell them to stop replying my old comments knowing I can't reply? I really appreciate it. Thanks
@Superrhinoceront
DeleteYou haven't been banned from Best Fighter for Canada. Merely given a warning for insulting an entire nationality of people. I will not allow that on my site. You cannot go around using the term "you Swedes" in a derogatory fashion any more than you can use "you Irish" or "you Jews".
You are more than welcome to come back at any time.
Thanks, good to know, but my last two replays didn't show up, just in case you didn't noticed. Maybe there is a glitch in the blog software? i don't think it would be difficult to repair.
DeleteThe same way you warning me, it would be nice if you also could warning other participants for using terms referring to Canada as a Satellite back yard of America and staff like that.
I'll check into it.
DeleteWho thought that an airforce so small would have problems soo big.
ReplyDeleteAnd when i say that statement I want to ask- Are small airforces really getting a bad deal with "so we'll have fewer but more capable and also more expensive aircraft" kind of thinking ? Especially those small airforces who have always maintained modern aircraft ?
Is modernity being priced out these days and only available to "Bulk Buyers" ?
Even when Europe put its best step forward with the EuroFighter, it was still a very expensive aircraft and was forced to trim its total numbers.
I know cutting edge technologies are expensive but do they have to be this expensive ?
All these small airforces have been sold a bag of goods (crap). They were all promised that this airplane with an oculus rift helmet for the pilot and a giant iPad cockpit would be a good price (remember $50-60M) as long as they all bought them and there were lots of orders.
DeleteThe sad part is this airplane might have actually had a chance at being something decent if they focused just on the F-35A model. The time and energy gone into building a few STOVL/VTOL versions has killed this program.
There were a post made a while back stating that the Israeli F-35 would only have a fraction of the amount of radar absorbent material that their US counterparts would receive.
ReplyDeleteI have not seen this information anywhere else and it sure should not be taken as fact.
But if the Israelis would be buying less competent (or more crappy) fighters, how neutered will the other countries F-35 be?
The article is misleading, the main concern about the single engine is not at the planes flight altitude but for bird-strike while landing-taking off, and its reliability over sea. And yes 700Mn a plane is a tad bit excessive, especially when they are plauged with safety and technical concerns, have mediocre performance, and when CAN will not recieve full control over the end product (i.e. access to the source code ,the ability to modify it and detailed information about the avionics).
ReplyDeleteThere could be how many sorts of backdoors and malicious code put in their by the USA. Whereas companies like SAAB have been much more open about providing their source code and other information about their avionics. No wonder Israel uses their own indigenous avionics... its bad enough that the UK almost didnt get limited access to the code so they could make the system compatible with different weapons.
And its not just whether or not their is malicious code, how can you know it is secure (against 3rd parties), unless you have access to the software, or whether it is written well???
You know Jacobite' sometimes I think that you don't buy F-35 but only lend it with warning to not look under the hood.
DeleteFor the moment at least the only thing that the F-35 is doing well is to destroy medium-sized NATO military procurement. Some countries will to put everything in the F-35s basket if they want some of them.
ReplyDeleteAs for Canada the best choice would be the Super Hornet, Australia already operates them...and maybe even the Rafale.
Canada can actually order the Advanced Super Hornet model at this point, with many added features over the block 2 models Aus ordered in their interim purchase of F-18s.
DeleteThe EPE engines are a must to improve the transonic performance as well as thrust/ratio.
The RCAF should be placing an interim order of 24-36 ASH F-18s at this point as a hedge, so that the airforce has true front-end aircraft ready for a fight by 2018. The current fleet of the smaller F-18s is getting old, too old by 2018 to be taken seriously. Politicians in this country think nothing of having our brave aircrews flying in 30&40 year old aircraft. For a G7 country with supposedly the best "financials" this is a disgrace, and simply lazy behavior because we are protected by two blue oceans and our body guard the USA. Sadly nothing, absolutely nothing will happen until after the next Federal election in late 2015. Until then the wheel will just keep spinning, zombie aircraft included.
Well I was not aware that the Advanced variant was already avaible, so yes, the F-18 IS the option.
DeleteI thought that some years ago the Canadian prime minister (Harper ?) announced a surge in military procurement to protect the Great North/Artic against some (let's says russian) foreign menace ? A part from the navy (new subs, frigates, helicopters), I think that the Air Force should get, as quick as possible (so no F-35 please) some new stuff for that. So in the end they did nothing ?
@balrog
DeleteThe problem the current govt has is that they went at all wrong. A sole source procurement approach, no RFP, no competition, everyone was told how great this "Star Wars" fighter would be. The CDN gov't used some BS figure for how the plane would cost. Then the auditor general, Parliamentary budget office and others all came out with cost estimates way over what the govt had originally stated. Then came the problems, mechanical problems, software issues, rising costs. LM says it's still in development, but it been 10 years,...10 years and hundreds of billions.
That's why at this point nothing can happen. If they committed to the plane, there would be so much cannon fodder for the political opposition that the current govt could seriously lose their majority in the next fed election. So they have to fence walk the politics between now and late 2015. In the mean time, I'm sure many of the F35 supporters in the govt bureaucracy are just crossing their fingers hoping that everything will be fixed and the cost of the plane will magically drop by then.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/australia-to-buy-24-super-hornets-as-interim-gapfiller-to-jsf-02898/
DeleteWhat Boeing says is as soon as the customer wants, they are ready to go with the ASH.
ReplyDeleteTo make functional the CFT and the enclosed weapons pod is not a big deal, the EPE engines exist already and the Touch Screen cockpit is ready in the Flight Simulators.
The secure Sat-Com is functional already with the Growler, so they can keep their Low Observability and comunicate and share the target locations. What's the point of being totally silent in the middle of a combat? you need to communicate securely.
And for the supposed Super Cruise of Mach1.2 of the other European fighters, who cares if they do it with small amount of weapons hanging from pylons, easy to detect? and for how long? at what distance?
Better to cruise at Mach 0.85 or Mach 0.90 with the weapons inside the enclosed weapons pod at grater distances. Up to that speed the CFT don't generate any drag and increase the lift.
@SR
DeleteI agree this supercruise thing is an over-used concept. I'm sure it has value on some circumstances but it isn't everything. Besides as you say a heavily loaded plane is not going to supercruise unless those weapons are internal.
I've always felt the F-18 SH was a great aircraft, just underpowered. The EPEs should put the plane closer to where it needs to be flight performance wise.
By the way, isn't ironic that we are all watching Navy F-18 Supers bombing those ISIS targets on CNN. Sure the Navy is most likely because they can launch at seas and overfly Iraq where as airforce planes would have to use Turkey or Jordan. Over and over we keep seeing 18's do this, 16's do that, 15's go here. The 22's are missing in action (too expensive for purpose) and the 35's are lucky if they get flight clearance (might catch fire).
Goes back to my original comment on this thread. Stealth is a niche requirement not a full air force need. Stealth is too expensive to operate, coatings and other components need to much maintenance, the plane's skin is generally not resilient, and the flight control surfaces are often compromised for the purpose of stealth.
Going down the road of jamming, e-warfare, etc, planes can have the full kinematic and flight performance capability.
That's the beauty of the Naval aviation, it can be any where in the world.
DeleteMach 0.9 is very fast already with out afterburners and with your weapons hided inside the EWP.
http://youtu.be/DC9ZqZNm5uk
http://youtu.be/pz8MnwgwJGk
April fool's day in July?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.duffelblog.com/2014/07/america-welcomes-afghanistan-newest-f-35-program-partner/
What a joke. The only way Afghanistan could be a partner is if there is some rare earth metal required that they can supply. Other than that the most sophisticated weapons system they can handle is a Toyota truck with a 50 cal mounted on it.
DeleteI think they are already supplying Opium to L.M. engineers.
ReplyDelete