F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Defense News: Canadian Military Would Need To Outsource F-35 Refueling
VICTORIA, British Columbia — Canada will rely on either private companies or its allies for midair refueling if it decides to purchase F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to replace its CF-18 fighter aircraft. But critics and analysts say the decision raises key issues about Canadian sovereignty and military capabilities.
Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) will not comment on the plan, but confirmation of the decision is contained in a brief passage in a government-ordered audit of Canada’s proposed F-35 buy. The 30-page audit by KMPG noted the cost of modifying the F-35s so they can be refueled in midair by Canadian aircraft is not included in the overall price tag of the fighter program because DND will not proceed with that option. “With respect to air-to-air refueling requirements, DND will rely on NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command], coalition partners, or commercial refueling assets to meet operational requirements,” stated the audit, “Next Generation Fighter Capability,” released Dec. 2.
The Royal Canadian Air Force hopes to purchase the F-35A, which uses a boom refueling system. The service’s existing CC-150 Polaris tankers use only the probe and drogue system, which is used by the F35-B and C.
Alan Williams, DND’s former head of procurement who approved Canada’s participation in the F-35 program, said the department’s plan makes no sense. “Are we going to spend a large amount of money on new fighters and then rely on allies to refuel aircraft over Canadian territory?” he asked. “Is Canada no longer a sovereign country?”
Defense analyst Martin Shadwick described the decision as a step backward for the Air Force. Canada went without strategic air-to-air refueling for a decade when it retired its older fleet of tankers in 1997, he noted. The Canadian Forces has a fleet of Hercules aircraft that can provide short-range tactical refueling to CF-18 fighters, but they are aging, Shadwick said.
Air Force commanders deemed the longer-range strategic air-to-air refueling capability critical, and 126 million Canadian dollars ($127.7 million) was spent modifying two Polaris aircraft for that role. Those aircraft became fully operational about three years ago but because of the decision not to modify the Canadian F-35s, the planes won’t be able to refuel those aircraft.
Shadwick said Canada’s ability to contribute to international missions could be limited. NORAD officials did not comment about whether U.S. tankers would be available for Canadian needs. A spokesman for the Joint Strike Fighter Office in the U.S. referred questions to Canadian military officials. Canadian military officials did not provide comment.............
VICTORIA, British Columbia — Canada will rely on either private companies or its allies for midair refueling if it decides to purchase F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to replace its CF-18 fighter aircraft. But critics and analysts say the decision raises key issues about Canadian sovereignty and military capabilities.
Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) will not comment on the plan, but confirmation of the decision is contained in a brief passage in a government-ordered audit of Canada’s proposed F-35 buy. The 30-page audit by KMPG noted the cost of modifying the F-35s so they can be refueled in midair by Canadian aircraft is not included in the overall price tag of the fighter program because DND will not proceed with that option. “With respect to air-to-air refueling requirements, DND will rely on NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command], coalition partners, or commercial refueling assets to meet operational requirements,” stated the audit, “Next Generation Fighter Capability,” released Dec. 2.
The Royal Canadian Air Force hopes to purchase the F-35A, which uses a boom refueling system. The service’s existing CC-150 Polaris tankers use only the probe and drogue system, which is used by the F35-B and C.
Alan Williams, DND’s former head of procurement who approved Canada’s participation in the F-35 program, said the department’s plan makes no sense. “Are we going to spend a large amount of money on new fighters and then rely on allies to refuel aircraft over Canadian territory?” he asked. “Is Canada no longer a sovereign country?”
Defense analyst Martin Shadwick described the decision as a step backward for the Air Force. Canada went without strategic air-to-air refueling for a decade when it retired its older fleet of tankers in 1997, he noted. The Canadian Forces has a fleet of Hercules aircraft that can provide short-range tactical refueling to CF-18 fighters, but they are aging, Shadwick said.
Air Force commanders deemed the longer-range strategic air-to-air refueling capability critical, and 126 million Canadian dollars ($127.7 million) was spent modifying two Polaris aircraft for that role. Those aircraft became fully operational about three years ago but because of the decision not to modify the Canadian F-35s, the planes won’t be able to refuel those aircraft.
Shadwick said Canada’s ability to contribute to international missions could be limited. NORAD officials did not comment about whether U.S. tankers would be available for Canadian needs. A spokesman for the Joint Strike Fighter Office in the U.S. referred questions to Canadian military officials. Canadian military officials did not provide comment.............
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose that the Canadians could always ingratiate themselves with the USN and change the buy to the C, longer range, probe refuelling, tougher for landing at remote bases etc.
Last edited by PhilipG; 7th Jan 2013 at 17:00.
In view of the jets/bins confusion, I offer, without comment, one Winslow T Wheeler, writing in the American magazine Foreign Policy.
WTW is Director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Washington-based Project on Government Oversight, aka POGO.
He's also the man who described the F-35 as the
airsound
There is only one thing to do with the F-35: Junk it. America’s air forces deserve a much better aircraft, and the taxpayers deserve a much cheaper one. The dustbin awaits.
He's also the man who described the F-35 as the
Jet that ate the Pentagon
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry... anything that delivers the same level of intended capability WILL cost just as much per aircraft, and would require a complete new pile of "from-the-start" development money.
F-35 development is nearly complete, NONE of that money can be gotten back, it is gone. To than start all over would be idiocy... something POGO has shown it possesses in massive quantities.
POGO's ideal new strike-fighter would, to hold to their cost guidelines, end up being a new version of the F-5A Freedom Fighter/F-5E Tiger II... with little more capabilities than the originals had.
F-35 development is nearly complete, NONE of that money can be gotten back, it is gone. To than start all over would be idiocy... something POGO has shown it possesses in massive quantities.
POGO's ideal new strike-fighter would, to hold to their cost guidelines, end up being a new version of the F-5A Freedom Fighter/F-5E Tiger II... with little more capabilities than the originals had.
I don't disagree with any of that, o Green one. I merely posted Mr W's words as yet another example of the fairly widespread anti-Dave feeling, including in some quite influential places.
I suppose that a new F-5A would at least be rather prettier than poor old Dave.
Also, I still like that phrase "the jet that ate the Pentagon". And perhaps that's not so far from becoming conceivable.....
On a brighter note the UK MoD has issued a release
If you want to see the whole thing, it's at
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...s-new-carriers
airsound
I suppose that a new F-5A would at least be rather prettier than poor old Dave.
Also, I still like that phrase "the jet that ate the Pentagon". And perhaps that's not so far from becoming conceivable.....
On a brighter note the UK MoD has issued a release
Pilots prepare for landing on Royal Navy's new carriers
Published 8 January 2013
Pilots have been using a simulator in Lancashire to help prepare them for landing on the Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers.
Published 8 January 2013
Pilots have been using a simulator in Lancashire to help prepare them for landing on the Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/p...s-new-carriers
airsound
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the F-35 is just the latest unneccesarily overcomplex and over expensive warplane.
We'd be better off with a greater number of less sophisticated, but still very capable aircraft, and more money spent on non-aviation assets like troops, vehicles, small boats and so on.
I think the F-35 programme is likely to be scaled back more and more as the reality of the situation sinks in.
We don't need the thing. No-one does.
We'd be better off with a greater number of less sophisticated, but still very capable aircraft, and more money spent on non-aviation assets like troops, vehicles, small boats and so on.
I think the F-35 programme is likely to be scaled back more and more as the reality of the situation sinks in.
We don't need the thing. No-one does.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
AtomKraft - Given your location I guess you'd rather more B-52s eh?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't deny it.
Really though, I was thinking that for the price of a new JSF, you could probably get an F/A-18E + 1000 air boats full of blokes from 'Keenie Meanie Services'.
Now, which would be more useful?
And here I intend to rest my case, your Honour.
Last edited by AtomKraft; 8th Jan 2013 at 12:51.
GK - The "sunk cost" argument sounds powerful, but is not actually a guide to future behavior. As an investment-oriented friend reminds me, "every smart portfolio manager occasionally accepts ugly losses on disappointing investments in order to redeploy funds to better opportunities."
The big JSF money is still ahead - basically, the current plan eats most USAF and Navy/Marine aircraft procurement money between now and 2030, excepting the tanker and T-X. So, no new bomber, and even if all goes well (which it has not done so far) more than half the USAF fighter force in 2030 comprises jets ordered 40+ years before.
That's why most independent budget studies, other than those that isolate the Pentagon from fiscal reality (and have been dead letters since the election), call for changes to the JSF program. SecDef nominee Hagel has endorsed the Simpson-Bowles plan that cut back F-35A/C and whacked the B.
And "nearly complete" is an odd description for "seven years away from IOC with the original planned capabilities."
The big JSF money is still ahead - basically, the current plan eats most USAF and Navy/Marine aircraft procurement money between now and 2030, excepting the tanker and T-X. So, no new bomber, and even if all goes well (which it has not done so far) more than half the USAF fighter force in 2030 comprises jets ordered 40+ years before.
That's why most independent budget studies, other than those that isolate the Pentagon from fiscal reality (and have been dead letters since the election), call for changes to the JSF program. SecDef nominee Hagel has endorsed the Simpson-Bowles plan that cut back F-35A/C and whacked the B.
And "nearly complete" is an odd description for "seven years away from IOC with the original planned capabilities."
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO: spot on, as usual. If Hagel gets confirmed (and I think he will - personally, I think he'd do a good job), then Dave-B is (correctly) in deep smelly stuff.
From a narrow US focus (which is, largely speaking, Hagel's putative job), it's just really hard to see how USMC justifies Dave-B from a ConOps perspective. What is the mission set that demands:
- All aspect stealth
- Supersonic (dash, anyway)
- FOB'd STOVL
.. and when the USN wouldn't send a CVN BG?
I suppose it is (just) possible, but so unlikely that compared with the cost pressures elsewhere you'd never choose it. So, bin Dave-B, tell the USMC to suck it up, and fly Dave-C (which they're already getting) from the big deck CVNs - and keep the V-22s. V-22 seems to me to be much more important to the USMC than Dave-B.
So, cancellation of Dave-B would increase pressure on "Dave" Cameron... so, El PM go for the one named after you: Dave-C.
S41
From a narrow US focus (which is, largely speaking, Hagel's putative job), it's just really hard to see how USMC justifies Dave-B from a ConOps perspective. What is the mission set that demands:
- All aspect stealth
- Supersonic (dash, anyway)
- FOB'd STOVL
.. and when the USN wouldn't send a CVN BG?
I suppose it is (just) possible, but so unlikely that compared with the cost pressures elsewhere you'd never choose it. So, bin Dave-B, tell the USMC to suck it up, and fly Dave-C (which they're already getting) from the big deck CVNs - and keep the V-22s. V-22 seems to me to be much more important to the USMC than Dave-B.
So, cancellation of Dave-B would increase pressure on "Dave" Cameron... so, El PM go for the one named after you: Dave-C.
S41
Squirrel,
That might be the right decision, but it wouldn't be the one I'd bet on hearing. Much more likely that if F35B gets canned so do the carriers and the Air Force gets a reduced buy of -A's.
Remember that SDSR only agreed to build the carriers because MoD couldn't cheaply get out of the contract and that it planned to sell/mothball one. Since then we have had (IMHO a pre-situated and over blown) appreciation of the costs of conversion for -C and there's still no current political capital behind the idea of a continuously available carrier force. Canning the carriers also saves a huge pile of through-life costs in ops, support and people when there still ain't no money ( and no votes in it either).
N
That might be the right decision, but it wouldn't be the one I'd bet on hearing. Much more likely that if F35B gets canned so do the carriers and the Air Force gets a reduced buy of -A's.
Remember that SDSR only agreed to build the carriers because MoD couldn't cheaply get out of the contract and that it planned to sell/mothball one. Since then we have had (IMHO a pre-situated and over blown) appreciation of the costs of conversion for -C and there's still no current political capital behind the idea of a continuously available carrier force. Canning the carriers also saves a huge pile of through-life costs in ops, support and people when there still ain't no money ( and no votes in it either).
N
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That might be the right decision, but it wouldn't be the one I'd bet on hearing. Much more likely that if F35B gets canned so do the carriers and the Air Force gets a reduced buy of -A's.
Seems like a somewhat pessimistic situation to me, and from what I've heard coming out of people down in the MoD, at least one carrier was always a favourable option. And if the carriers get binned, then that'll be money that has never been wasted on such a colossal scale before.
The more likely option, if the B gets binned, is a typhoon/F18 fast jet fleet.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The weekly speculation of the imminent cancellation of the F35 goes on here....Meanwhile....in the real world where most people live.
Subs and F-35 are considered the priority for US procurement and will be the last to go.
and
Wires Brief: UK pilots practice landing F-35, next CIA chief takes heat, Pakistan-India skirmish erupts - DefenceReport
"BAE flight test trainers have been begun teaching RAF and Royal Navy pilots how to land the F-35B on the simulated rolling deck of the HMS Queen Elizabeth, reports the MoD. BAE says they are teaching pilots in their Lancashire-based simulators to use the shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) method – a manoeuvre that requires the pilot to fly at about 60 knots (111 kilometres per hour) with a flight path of six to seven degrees in order to land on deck. This method, says BAE, allows the F-35B to reduce impact force of landing, preserving the air frame. Lockheed Martin incorporated the SRVL system for the UK at an initial cost of some USD 13 million (GBP 8 million). "
and
As to Canada, they also need a boom for their C-17 air refuelling. Buy, leased or contracted, Canada will have boom refuelling
Subs and F-35 are considered the priority for US procurement and will be the last to go.
and
Wires Brief: UK pilots practice landing F-35, next CIA chief takes heat, Pakistan-India skirmish erupts - DefenceReport
"BAE flight test trainers have been begun teaching RAF and Royal Navy pilots how to land the F-35B on the simulated rolling deck of the HMS Queen Elizabeth, reports the MoD. BAE says they are teaching pilots in their Lancashire-based simulators to use the shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) method – a manoeuvre that requires the pilot to fly at about 60 knots (111 kilometres per hour) with a flight path of six to seven degrees in order to land on deck. This method, says BAE, allows the F-35B to reduce impact force of landing, preserving the air frame. Lockheed Martin incorporated the SRVL system for the UK at an initial cost of some USD 13 million (GBP 8 million). "
and
As to Canada, they also need a boom for their C-17 air refuelling. Buy, leased or contracted, Canada will have boom refuelling
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the F35B is cancelled can the UK claim back any of the investment in the JSF from the Americans? Would the MOD have been silly enough to sign a contract that let's the US off the hook for all the billions of pounds invested without providing the end product?
Or could the UK sting the US for the cost of converting the carriers to cat and trap ships?
Or could the UK sting the US for the cost of converting the carriers to cat and trap ships?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, given that the US thought it was possible to equip a CVN with cats and wires for $500 million and we considered it necessary to spend almost £3 billion doing the same - we might have to argue for a while as to how big the sting might be!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as an aside question, have the skijump launches at Pax river already
started?
Last I heard was that it was "imminent", that was back in july.
Anybody who knows more or has a video maybe?
I youtubed and googled but got nothing so far.
started?
Last I heard was that it was "imminent", that was back in july.
Anybody who knows more or has a video maybe?
I youtubed and googled but got nothing so far.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JSFfan,
Many of the people 'speculating' know an awful lot more about the programme than you will ever come close to being privy to; your bias towards the F35 doesn't validate your opinion either.
As has been pointed out to you before, the skeletal beginning of a training regime is by no means a guarantee of its success. What do you expect them to do? Sit around on their arses for 6 months as speculation continues, but no firm decision has been made?
It's plain to anyone who can add up that there is another restructuring coming for this thing.
Many of the people 'speculating' know an awful lot more about the programme than you will ever come close to being privy to; your bias towards the F35 doesn't validate your opinion either.
As has been pointed out to you before, the skeletal beginning of a training regime is by no means a guarantee of its success. What do you expect them to do? Sit around on their arses for 6 months as speculation continues, but no firm decision has been made?
It's plain to anyone who can add up that there is another restructuring coming for this thing.
Last edited by Bastardeux; 9th Jan 2013 at 14:05.
If the F35B is cancelled can the UK claim back any of the investment in the JSF from the Americans? Would the MOD have been silly enough to sign a contract that let's the US off the hook for all the billions of pounds invested without providing the end product?
Or could the UK sting the US for the cost of converting the carriers to cat and trap ships?
Or could the UK sting the US for the cost of converting the carriers to cat and trap ships?
However, despite the somewhat frenzied anticipation in some quarters, the US does not have a plan B. Simpson-Bowles as I understand it envisages some sort of F16 restart (configuration / block unknown) and an extension of F18E/F production.
Whether these actually meet a requirement or not does not appear to have been considered, which is a bit disappointing, especially considering the effort that has gone into the JIRD and JORD over the years. If I were an LM exec, I'd be lobbying my Congresstypes, suggesting that all sorts of legal challenges might be forthcoming unless there is demonstrable evidence that the requirement has changed. That could just run and run......
In essence, the detail of any Plan B is ephemeral at best and largely consists of people going "I like not this aircraft, bring me another aircraft", without the slightest idea of how that is going to be achieved, particularly for the USAF.
There is also the slight issue that (one assumes) the USMC still requires some sort of jet that can fly off the LHD/LHA. Whether it is day 1 stealthy or not (which is probably the only contentious bit) is to a degree irrelevant. The last time I looked, there isn't a frame in production anywhere in the world that would provide that capability. If that capability is required then you're looking at either re-starting a production line that's been dead for the best part of twenty years or designing a brand-spanking new STOVL jet. Neither is a particularly sensible choice.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 9th Jan 2013 at 14:17.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many of the people 'speculating' know an awful lot more about the programme than you will ever come close to being privy to; your bias towards the F35 doesn't validate your opinion either.
As has been pointed out to you before, the skeletal beginning of a training regime is by no means a guarantee of its success. What do you expect them to do? Sit around on their arses for 6 months as speculation continues, but no firm decision has been made?
It's plain to anyone who can add up that there is another restructuring coming for this thing.
As has been pointed out to you before, the skeletal beginning of a training regime is by no means a guarantee of its success. What do you expect them to do? Sit around on their arses for 6 months as speculation continues, but no firm decision has been made?
It's plain to anyone who can add up that there is another restructuring coming for this thing.
It isn't the ones harbouring a delusional wish propagating the possibilityof the F-35b being cancelled or that a catobar carrier fitted the UK CONOPS.
I can't see the possibility of another USA restructure before LRIP 8 - 2016, when the proposed ramp-up starts. As has been said, the subs and F-35 are the priority procurement and will the last to get a funding cut.