Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

Old 21st Jul 2016, 17:15
  #9461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 246
It doesn’t appear that the short term cash flow issue has dampened the company’s business forecast.
For the year, Lockheed now expects to report $12.15 to $12.45 in earnings per share, up from an earlier prediction of $11.50 to $11.80 a share. The company expects to log $50 billion to $51.5 billion in revenue this year, higher than its previous $49.6 billion to $51.1 billion forecast.
Bevo is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2016, 14:03
  #9462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 73
Posts: 1,020
Canada Starting From Scratch?

The Canadian government has issued a request for information from aerospace firms about the types of fighter aircraft they could provide, a signal that an earlier proposal to acquire Boeing Super Hornet jets on an interim basis is likely dead.
Canada Casts Wide Net in Search for Fighter-Jet Replacements

How much life left in their CF-18's ?
Lyneham Lad is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2016, 18:07
  #9463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
From where I sit this is likely one of two things:

1 - Canada cannot appear to have chosen the candidate fighter before a 'competition' is declared, therefore must cast the net wide. It may still have eyes on the SHornet, but needs an apparent competition. Boeing will eventually get a call for those 'buy now, pay later' "Best Buy" rates it promised the Canadian Govt to keep it in the fighter business.

2 - The Trudeau Govt is slowly waking up to the fact that SHornet will become obsolete far sooner than it wants for a 'new type'. Thus, it must now re-position to select F-35A (or C) once more, without unconvincingly destroying their election promise.

Out of the options above I would side with option 2 because I know that Canadian Air Force SMEs have recommended F-35 each and every time they have been asked to provide the military judgement on the matter. Sadly it seems to have fallen on deaf ears, much to the frustration of the Air Force experts.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 25th Jul 2016, 18:48
  #9464 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,069
The third view is that they are sticking to their story - there will be a competition for a new fighter - but with no date given for a decision, lots of time to decide, certainly not before one of the options, the F-35, needs to have achieved full operational service to establish its actual capability.

In the meantime, the F-18E/F/G is being procured as a follow on order to the current fleet as an interim option to fill the operational need whilst utilising the current type experience with minimal engineer/pilot training etc - in exactly the same way that the RAAF is doing.

"See, we are just doing what they are doing, nothing underhand to see here, move along folks....."
ORAC is online now  
Old 25th Jul 2016, 23:29
  #9465 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 239
Why not just wait.. Drag out what they have.. see how the f 35 a performs then decide.. Also as a purchaser of a large wedge of military kit also offset performance v cost .. Now and in the future.. Then choose what suits Canada best . Why rush it
SARF is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2016, 00:30
  #9466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
SARF - It's been mentioned here before: If Canada wants to drag out the decision, fine, but it risks losing a large proportion of its secured industrial participation in doing so. Every partner has now placed firm orders for aircraft, except Canada, and Canada has already lost precious 'intelligent customer' status within the partnership. Relegation to the back benches is not where they wanted to be, and, if that industrial share goes, the offer becomes a lot less attractive to Canada.

ORAC - Canada may indeed be holding out but from where I sit it's a dangerous game. As far as capability is concerned, the USAF will probably declare their IOC earlier than planned and LM have turned a massive corner with a few of the Program's issues to enable that. After all, the USAF are the Program's biggest and best customer. But I also don't believe that a Super Hornet 'Band Aid' - to see Canada through to an F-35 commitment - will wash with Mr Trudeau and his Govt. Delaying any orders too far shallows the gradient on the F-35 cost curve and the US and other partners won't be appreciative of that. It's like Canada is the last in the pub round to buy, but hopes last orders will be called before they're expected to dip into their pockets. Finally, the comparison between Canada and Australia is quite invalid - on one hand you have Australia, which has already bought (and has placed further orders to buy) F-35s, as well as F-18Es to bridge their fighter gap. On the other hand you have Canada, which hasn't ordered a thing from any fighter manufacturing company yet and, as they say, money talks.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2016, 01:54
  #9467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
The Plastic Pig

"Term for a small cab made from GRP
Made famous as the transport for del boy in the TV show only fools and horses. Very slow and has a tendency to roll over when cornering. Used as a term of abuse for any slow or crap cab."

How apt.

Last edited by glad rag; 26th Jul 2016 at 02:05.
glad rag is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2016, 02:37
  #9468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
As eloquent as ever gr. Per usual, you seem to lack a relevant point or any background to your statements.

Perhaps another dit from you about the 'vv' and 'alpha' again, for giggles?
MSOCS is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2016, 03:35
  #9469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,362
What do you expect from JATK, MSOCS? For the sake of posterity
Awesome. JATK sd.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2016, 13:54
  #9470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 768
kicking the can....

Originally Posted by SARF View Post
Why not just wait.. Drag out what they have.. see how the f 35 a performs then decide.. Also as a purchaser of a large wedge of military kit also offset performance v cost .. Now and in the future.. Then choose what suits Canada best . Why rush it

Besides the potential risk of losing work share, there is also risk with pushing the decision too far- as was done with the CH-124 (S-3) Sea Kings in Canadian service. The Sea Kings were pushed way past their expected service lives due to dickering, politics, finances, indecision and the late cancellation of their intended replacement. The Sea Kings were never expected to serve so long. With old airframes you either get to unsafe conditions, or lots of money to keep them going a few more years, or both. Major upgrades are deferred because no one expects the aircraft to be in service that long. You could spend millions to bandaid the fleet together, or many more millions for a major upgrade (like the center barrel section replacement on the Hornets). You can then be forced into a purchasing crisis as your equipment is literally falling out of the sky.


Anyone that has had debated keeping an old car relate- you pay for the $600 brake repair, the $2,500 transmission repair, 6 months later, the $250 radiator repair....it adds up. Would your money be better spent on a new car? Oh by the way your Band-Aid car is now 20+ years old, does not have airbags, does not have antilock brakes, still has a cassette deck, and is less reliable- and you think "do I really want my sons and daughters driving this thing?"


Do you want your warfighters to go into battle with Band-Aid gear? Most worrisome is you risk putting pilots into danger in perhaps obsolescent or unsafe aircraft.


You can only kick the can so far down the road. Canada does not have a great track record on deferred decisions.
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2016, 18:09
  #9471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 788
F-35B Participates in Red Flag 16-3

VMFA-121 from MCAS Yuma participates for the first time with the F-35B in Red Flag 16-3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZKw_BobSTo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Qr3Yt1xNg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGxQRxe4niw
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2016, 18:37
  #9472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,147
Original quote by sandiego89: Anyone that has had debated keeping an old car relate- you pay for the $600 brake repair, the $2,500 transmission repair, 6 months later, the $250 radiator repair....it adds up. Would your money be better spent on a new car? Oh by the way your Band-Aid car is now 20+ years old, does not have airbags, does not have antilock brakes, still has a cassette deck
Funny you should bring up old cars, we have two, one is 17 years old going on 18 and the other is 15 years old going on 16. Both have all the stuff you think are missing. But, what is missing are monthly loan or lease payments when you don't have the cash to plunk down upfront for the latest and greatest. Don't think your analogy fits the current picture quite correctly. For the F-35, one thing that won't be missing is the continual upgrades to fix things that don't work well along with the associated costs, or to replace technology that is quickly becoming dated due to late delivery.
Turbine D is online now  
Old 26th Jul 2016, 19:26
  #9473 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
The logical way forward is to purchase 24-36 F/A-18Fs to bolster the immediate needs of the air force, and include the wiring for conversion to the EA variant at a later date. Then conduct a full scale, fair evaluation of alternatives in 2022-4. (it would be advantageous for LM to wait until the F-35 matures and gains added capabilities in Block 4.x.) If LM plays hardball and threatens to pull contracts, tell them they will be disqualified from consideration in any new evaluation. Furthermore, the government should stipulate that any winner is expected to produce a certain percentage of the aircraft in Canada. AFA the Super Hornet being obsolete, only the fanboys believe that nonsense - certainly the USN doesn't believe it as evidenced by its purchasing decisions.
Maus92 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2016, 20:23
  #9474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by MSOCS View Post
SARF -

Finally, the comparison between Canada and Australia is quite invalid - on one hand you have Australia, which has already bought (and has placed further orders to buy) F-35s, as well as F-18Es to bridge their fighter gap.
Interesting point, however the RAAF procured only twin seaters (F, F+, & G) to address a strike/bomber gap with the retirement of the F-111, not a fighter gap.
2805662 is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2016, 01:09
  #9475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Thanks for the correction there. My bad.

Maus - the Super H isn't obsolete today, and won't be tomorrow either, but it will be far sooner than F-35. No "fanboy" nonsense either, as I'm a "fan" of both.

Canada playing the short game will be more costly. If it plays the longer game it'll reap rewards beyond just having the jets. As for holding LM hostage YGBSM. Canada's orders will pale compared to the total production and there are plenty of partners and US companies baying for Canada's industrial share already.
MSOCS is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2016, 08:22
  #9476 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,069
280, in view of the lack of improvement of the F-35 in fighter performance of the last F-15/16/18 generation, and limited Mx load, it surely makes an even better for Canada seeking. A fighter replacement that Australia a bomber?

MSOCS, as linked to perilously, the Canadian F-35 work share is not tied any future order, only to Canada's - continuing - partnership in the programme. Any attempt to take away work in breach of contract would end up badly for LM. Plus, of course, Boeing saying they will outmatch any LM offset work, and they have their entire civil airline production lines to provide aviation related offset work from - unlike LM.
ORAC is online now  
Old 28th Jul 2016, 07:20
  #9477 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,069
Aimed at replacing the BACN etc and at getting the F-22/35 to talk with each other and all the L16 world?

AW&ST : Raytheon Wins Contract to Link UAVs, Aircraft


"The U.S. military still has a problem getting different types of aircraft to communicate with each other. But DARPA is working to change that, seeding companies to link manned and unmanned aerial vehicles. As part of that effort, Raytheon has won two contracts worth $9 million under DARPA’s Dynamic Network Adaptation for Mission Optimization program.

The goal is to easily share information with different types of sensors on different aircraft, even in contested environments. “First, we will adapt radio parameters in reaction to changing information needs and conditions, so current and future airborne networks can communicate with each other,” says Jason Redi, vice president for Raytheon BBN Technologies Networking and Communications. “Second, we will create an efficient way to share information across and between networks that are currently incompatible so that applications operating on them can share relevant data.”

The program is looking for technology that can bridge the gap between legacy networks and future adaptive ones. In the end, the program will conduct in-air experiments in tactically relevant scenarios. DARPA is looking for two primary elements—an information-based network framework and a network optimizer that can adapt even when radio frequencies are contested. Another part of the program is to integrate those technologies into a system of real radios, DARPA said in announcing the program"
ORAC is online now  
Old 29th Jul 2016, 14:13
  #9478 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Turning a corner, or dropping into the abys?

The Air Force is close to declaring the controversial F-35 ready for combat
Washington Post 07/28/2016
The Air Force is close to certifying that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is ready for combat, a declaration that would become one of the most significant milestones in the long and tortured history of the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program ever.After years of delays, cost overruns and controversy, top Pentagon officials could make the decision as early as next week, some 15 years after the program began.
In an interview, Gen. Herbert "Hawk" Carlisle, the head of the Air Force's Air Combat Command, said the jet fighter would likely be declared combat ready "at the leading edge" of a timeframe that begins Aug. 1. Once that happens, he said "they are ready to go." Still, he said the program remains in its developmental stages, and that officials have continued to find and fix problems. The plane still still due for upgrades in its software in addition to other changes.
"I'm very, very confident it is going to continue to exceed our expectations," he said. Declaring the plane's "initial combat capability is just the beginning. We still have work to do on the airplane, and it will continue to get better."
For years, the $400 billion program suffered a series of problems, and the F-35 was derided as "the plane that ate the Pentagon." In 2014, the engine of one of the jets caught fire as it was preparing to take off, forcing the Pentagon to temporarily ground the entire fleet.
But in more recent years the program has gotten back on track, Pentagon officials said. Production has begun to climb. Prices have come down. And it has hit a series of milestones, including its international debut at an airshow this summer in the United Kingdom.
Approximately 180 of the aircraft have been delivered by Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor. And the Pentagon plans to buy a total of 2,443—though some in Congress, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has said there is no way the military will be able to afford that many.
Still, military officials say the so-called 5th generation fighter is a significant step up from its predecessors, allowing pilots to maneuver undetected through enemy territory. The plane, which relies on so many lines of code it's often referred to as a "flying computer," has also been heralded for its ability to give pilots unparalleled situational awareness.
As the Air Force transitions from F-16s to the F-35, Lt. Col George Watkins, the commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron, said he has "been amazed at what we can do when going up against 4th generation fighters" in training.
"They have no idea where we're at," he said in a call with reporters. "And that's a pretty awesome feeling to know your pilots are in a unfair fight. That's what we're looking for."
The jet comes in three variants. One for the Marine Corps, which can land vertically and take off on a short runway. The Navy version is capable of landing on aircraft carriers, while the Air Force's is a more conventional fighter jet.
Last year, the Marine Corps declared that its variant was ready for combat. But the declaration from the Air Force would be much more significant because the service plans on buying 1,763 of the jets, more than any other of the services.
"It's an endorsement that the program is back on track, and it really needs that," said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst at the Teal Group, a Virginia-based consulting firm.
He also noted that the Air Force's version, the F-35A, is the version of the jet that many foreign governments have chosen as well. "They are taking a lot of heat because of the problems with the program," he said. "And this gives them political cover: 'Hey it's entered service in the U.S.'"
In recent testimony before Congress, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, the program's executive director, said the fighter is "at a pivot point" as production is about to ramp up. He said while 45 aircraft were manufactured in 2015, that number should grow to more than 100 in 2018 and up to 145 by 2020.
Richard Meyer, the Air Force's Deputy Chief of the F-35 System Management Office Division, said the aircraft that's being certified will be able to perform many basic functions but will continue to evolve as time goes on.
"There are more improvements that are going to continue to modernize the airplane," he said. "We'll be able to get better weapons and better avionics, and make it better against an evolving threat. The enemy isn't standing still."
Contract negotiations between Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon on the next two batches of aircraft, a total of 147 jets, have dragged out for months. And during a recent earnings call, Bruce Tanner, Lockheed's chief financial officer, said the company has had to spend nearly $1 billion of its own money to keep the line going.
"We will not be able to continue and have that level of cash outflow as a corporation. We simply don't have that capacity," he said. "The Pentagon clearly knows that situation, and I'm optimistic that we are going to get cash soon."
KenV is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2016, 20:51
  #9479 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,069
Israel to walk away from the F-35?

The JPost

"....And so we come to the F-35.

For Israel, to a significant degree, the aid package on offer is about the F-35, the US’s fifth generation fighter, otherwise known as the Joint Strike Fighter. Last month Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman and IAF Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen Tal Kelman flew to Texas to ceremonially “take possession” of Israel’s first two F-35s. Both aircraft are set to be delivered to Israel in December.

To date, the IAF has purchased 33 F-35s – all with US aid money. The IAF wants to purchase a total of 75 F-35s, which are supposed to replace the F-16s and the F-15s that the IAF currently fields. As Liberman made clear during his visit, whether Israel purchases them or not is entirely dependent on the aid deal.

We should not take them. We should walk away. And we should walk away even if we receive nothing in exchange for the planes we reject.

The F-35 is a disaster of epic proportions, for the US first and foremost. If Israel agrees to base its next generation fighters on the F-35, it will be a disaster for us as well. Although it is late in the game, we need to cut our losses......"
ORAC is online now  
Old 29th Jul 2016, 21:49
  #9480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
I smell a rat:

"stealth is its calling card"....um, nope.

"Too hot, has to open weapon bay doors"....also, nope.

"20 million lines of code"....that's also bogus. It's just shy of 9 million.

This article was likely manufactured by a kid in a basement. Don't believe everything that comes with a fancy header. And if it IS "kosher", the journalist also probably thinks a 5 inch gun is the length of a toothbrush.
MSOCS is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.