Federal Cabinet to finally decide fate of the troubled F-35 Program

[badbadboy]

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/procurement/cabinet-decide-fate-troubled-f-35-program-report-complete-136787?utm_source=CMO&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CMO-EN04212014&e=s8270s3q7vx0rWr70nM20

Finally a report has been submitted to decide whether to go ahead with the F-35's or have an open competition for the replacement of the F-18's.

 

[sdw]

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/procurement/cabinet-decide-fate-troubled-f-35-program-report-complete-136787?utm_source=CMO&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=CMO-EN04212014&e=s8270s3q7vx0rWr70nM20

Finally a report has been submitted to decide whether to go ahead with the F-35's or have an open competition for the replacement of the F-18's.

Boeing had already delivered 79 "upgraded" CF18 dual role planes to the Canadian Forces by 2010. I would bet that the Canadian Government will stay with the CF18. They don't have to retrain aircrew and ground support, they don't have to worry about supplying parts for another aircraft and the CF18 can use all of the NATO ordnance. The CF18 is also already Arctic capable, the F35 is not Arctic capable in it's current configuration. http://www.boeing.ca/en/Products-and-Services/Defense,-Space-Security/CF-18-Hornet

The Canadian Government demonstrated that it prefers to go with the known when it decided to "upgrade" the CH47 Chinook Helicopter in 2009 with 15 CH47F Chinooks. http://www.boeing.ca/en/Products-and-Services/Defense,-Space-Security/CH-47-Chinook. They did the same thing with the C130 Cargo Plane when they "upgraded" the CC130 to the CC130J in 2010. http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft-current/cc-130j.page

Countries like the USA with huge defense budgets can afford single role aircraft. Canada can't.

The F35 is a single role aircraft like the F14, F16, A10 or B1 That's fine when you have a separate Army, Airforce, Navy and Marines. Canada is an integrated force like the US Marines. The US Marines use the F18 because it's a multi-role aircraft, the US Navy uses the F18 because they needed a dual role plane for medium bomber and ground support.

 

[badbadboy]

I frequent this website and found it to have up to date information. It's not a fanboy website for Mil Contractors and the like nor is it for those opposed to a Military build up. They basically call it for what it is and give the straight deal on the spending by US DoD on all current programs. Interesting to note the current price per copy is now $162M each and they still think they can get it down to $80M each by 2019 when full production is up and running. Still its a very expensive piece of hardware.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/17/f-35-program-production-costs-rise-7-billion/

Given the Auditor General's numbers show the Government is budgeting approx $44B to be spent over ten years on this new fighter program it is neither necessary nor required IMHO.

SDW pointed out that the F-18 Hornet is still a viable option. It has served us well since the 1980's and from what I have read the US Navy is trying to purchase more Super Hornets. Only problem is upgrading and keeping older technology running for another 20+ years or so. We don't want the F-18's to be in the same category as our 50 year old + Sea King Helicopters that are in for maintenance more than they are in the air.

 

[sdw]

I frequent this website and found it to have up to date information. It's not a fanboy website for Mil Contractors and the like nor is it for those opposed to a Military build up. They basically call it for what it is and give the straight deal on the spending by US DoD on all current programs. Interesting to note the current price per copy is now $162M each and they still think they can get it down to $80M each by 2019 when full production is up and running. Still its a very expensive piece of hardware.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/17/f-35-program-production-costs-rise-7-billion/

Given the Auditor General's numbers show the Government is budgeting approx $44B to be spent over ten years on this new fighter program it is neither necessary nor required IMHO.

SDW pointed out that the F-18 Hornet is still a viable option. It has served us well since the 1980's and from what I have read the US Navy is trying to purchase more Super Hornets. Only problem is upgrading and keeping older technology running for another 20+ years or so. We don't want the F-18's to be in the same category as our 50 year old + Sea King Helicopters that are in for maintenance more than they are in the air.

I don't think that the CF/A18 "upgrades" resulted in an aircraft with the same problems as the Sea Kings. Boeing says http://www.boeing.ca/en/Products-and-Services/Defense,-Space-Security/CF-18-Hornet

. . . The combat-proven CF-18 Hornet is a twin-engine, multi-mission, tactical aircraft. It converts between air-to-air fighter missions and air-to-ground strike missions while on the same sortie with the flick of a switch. The CF-18 fulfills the following types of assignment: fighter escort, suppression of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, forward air control, close air support, and day and night strike missions.

Adapted from the F/A-18, the Canadian version of the jet features:

a searchlight beneath the fuselage for nighttime visual identifications
survival equipment adapted to the Canadian environment
various cockpit layout modifications


The F/A-18 Hornet has been deployed by the armed services of the following nations: United States (Navy and Marines), Canada, Australia, Spain, Kuwait, Finland, Switzerland, and Malaysia.

Program Milestones:

Boeing completed the CF-18 Modernization Project in March 2010 with delivery of the 79th upgraded CF-18 Hornet aircraft to Canada’s defence forces. The two-phase, nine-year incremental upgrade of Canada’s CF-18 Hornet fleet ensures an effective and operationally credible fighter force for Canada.
Phase 1 of the project, completed in 2006, upgraded the Canadian Hornet fleet’s avionics, radar, radio and weapons capabilities.
Phase 2, completed in March 2010, improved the data link system to ensure Canadian forces are interoperable with United States and other allied aircraft fleets and added the Boeing Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System to improve weapons targeting. New color cockpit displays to increase situational awareness were incorporated along with an upgraded, chaff-and-flare dipsensing electronic warfare system to improve survivability.

So, basically new aircraft as of 2006 or 2010 because an aircraft with airframe or engine problems wouldn't have been "upgraded".

That's why I think that the recommendation will be to simply acquire more CF18s. If the US Navy and Marines were not continuing to acquire F/A18s, that would be a different thing because Boeing isn't going to maintain a production capability for a small potential market.

I had to laugh at this little gem in the discussion section

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/04/17/f-35-program-production-costs-rise-7-billion/

"' Instead of buying ten titanium forgings we now buy 100 and we get a good price deal,' Bogdan said."

And the world's largest supplier of milspec titanium, by a considerable margin, is Russia.

Brilliant plan. Without doubt, nothing could go wrong.

 

[poorboyv6]

Buying more F18's that Canada currently operates is not a viable option. These models were discontinued in 2010. It has been replaced with the F/A18E Super Hornet, which should have probably been given another name since the aircraft is 20% larger, carries 33% more fuel and has 25% more wing area.

Unlike many of the cold war and earlier aircraft, the F18 has a finite life due to its composite construction. A few have had their forward fuselages completely replaced to keep them flying, but they can't keep doing this because eventually, the other parts of the aircraft will reach the end of their airframe life. Some of Canada's F18's are already ending up in museums. I know with certainty that one is in the Aviation museum in Ottawa.

A F/A18E would be a lot cheaper choice than the F35, which performs worse in many key areas to the Super Hornet.

Buying current production aircraft is a smart move on Canada's part. It keeps costs down, but even still, there are many problems with old airframes that have been modernized like the C130J. Proper maintenance procedures have not been developed for the new systems, so a lot of them are currently grounded. Half of the groundings are administrative procedures, and the other half are new system issues. A brand new airframe would be much worse though.

Sometimes old technology is still the best technology. The Lockheed Auroras are up for replacement, but there's nothing currently made like it. Lockheed actually started up the line again to produce replacement wings to keep the P3's flying until they are replaced. The proposed candidate is the 737 based P8A Poseidon, which has no where near the endurance.

 

[sdw]

It looks like PeaceGuy and poorboyv6 are right. Canada is not looking at too many more years of use from the existing CF18 fleet.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30624.pdf
http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/TD/td1801/halpin.pdf
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f18-hornets-keeping-em-flying-02816/

I still think that Canada should buy the latest version of the F/A18 as the replacement. That way Canada gets a multi-role aircraft. The F35 is a single role aircraft and to attempt to use it in a ground support role would lead to the problems Canada had with the CF104.

In Libya, Canada flew each aircraft more often than the French and the UK because of the CF/A18's ground attack ability.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/0...rtionate-amount-to-libya-air-strikes-sources/

. . . “The folks that are flying are flying hard and they’re flying a high tempo of operations,” said Brigadier-General Derek Joyce, commander of Task Force Libeccio, as the Italy-based Canadian team is called. “I’m very, very proud of what they’ve accomplished.”

It is difficult to get a precise picture of who is contributing what to the campaign, said Prof. Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, a British defence think-tank.

However, “the Canadians are reported to be doing a lot of [sorties],” he said in an emailed response to questions. “Only Canada, France and the U.K., among the allies, have kept up a constant high tempo of ground attacks. The other five who have done some attacking have been more variable. Also, Canada has the right aircraft for the role and has more appropriate weapons systems to deploy than some other allies.”

There also appear to be some parts supply issues with the Eurofighter as in this http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/134418/

As also becomes clear in the Libya discussion. Canada wants to be NATO and UN tasked - not USA tasked. The USA got everyone into Libya and then withdrew all 50 of it's aircraft and it's warships leaving Canada, France and the UK to carry the load with aircraft and ships. There is no good reason to choose a single role aircraft that will only work if it's embedded in an American operation.

 

[sdw]

Maybe if the government decides to buy the newer version of the F/A18, they can get Boeing to throw in a few of these

http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Features/2013/09/bds_phantom_badger_09_19_13.page

 

[westwoody]

Typhoon +1.

And Canada will need lots of them to protect Arctic sovereignty. The polar waters are more open and many countries consider that area to be international waters. Russia claims the North Pole. Good luck enforcing anything without eyes in the sky.