More delays for the F-35
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're no mean slooches at electronics, just about every phone or modern bit of telecom equipment is built someone in China
Top chip companies (phones/telecoms): Apple (US), Broadcom (US), Cavium (US), Freescale (US), Huawei/HiSilicon (China), Mediatek (Taiwan), NVidia (US), Renesas (Japan), Qualcomm (US), Samsung (Korea), STE (France), TI (US)
Top chip manufacturers (phones/telecoms): Global Foundries (Abu Dhabi/US), IBM (US), SMIC (China), TSMC (Taiwan), UMC (Taiwan)
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
F-35: Julian Fantino Raises Prospect Of Nixing Stealth Fighter Deal
F-35: Julian Fantino Raises Prospect Of Nixing Stealth Fighter Deal
OTTAWA - The point man on the F-35 stealth fighter purchase says the Conservative government has not ruled out abandoning the troubled project.
"We have not, as yet, discounted the possibility, of course, of backing out of any of the program," Julian Fantino, associate defence minister, told the House of Commons defence committee Tuesday.
Fantino made the comment after a series of pointed questions from the opposition parties.
A tiny shift in the hard-headed policy on the country's most costly military purchase, it is also a drastic departure from the political rhetoric of a few months ago when Fantino declared his unwavering support before an American business audience.
"We have not, as yet, discounted the possibility, of course, of backing out of any of the program," Julian Fantino, associate defence minister, told the House of Commons defence committee Tuesday.
Fantino made the comment after a series of pointed questions from the opposition parties.
A tiny shift in the hard-headed policy on the country's most costly military purchase, it is also a drastic departure from the political rhetoric of a few months ago when Fantino declared his unwavering support before an American business audience.
If they're even mentioning it in public, it shows how deep the feelings (doubts) run. I expect it's topic of conversation on Air Force One. I wonder what inducements David might succumb to.
The Canadians are singing a different tune from a year and a half ago...
Oct 19, 2010, Minister Dan Ross:
Let’s remember we are acquiring a fighter for the next 30 or 40 years. I would ask whether you would want your son or daughter or future granddaughter in yesterday’s technology or in the most effective and secure aircraft in the future.
Let’s state the obvious: you must have more than one viable supplier to have a competition, and there is only one fifth-generation fighter available.
It's the only aircraft in the western world that meets the operational requirements of the CF.
... and when I say a different tune, I mean the difference between O Canada and The Lumberjack Song.
Oct 19, 2010, Minister Dan Ross:
Let’s remember we are acquiring a fighter for the next 30 or 40 years. I would ask whether you would want your son or daughter or future granddaughter in yesterday’s technology or in the most effective and secure aircraft in the future.
Let’s state the obvious: you must have more than one viable supplier to have a competition, and there is only one fifth-generation fighter available.
It's the only aircraft in the western world that meets the operational requirements of the CF.
... and when I say a different tune, I mean the difference between O Canada and The Lumberjack Song.
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 highlighting an interesting point in the link.
Maybe they are starting to realize that their financial numbers
where nothing more than pipedreams.
and
US Air Force sees delay in operational use of the F-35 fighter jet ~ Terminal X
All this makes one wonder how the Canadians can maintain their idea that a
purchase price of 9billion for 65 frames can be set in stone?
I cannot spell therefor I edit.
Maybe they are starting to realize that their financial numbers
where nothing more than pipedreams.
The Harper government says the $9 billion it intends to spend on 65 of the jets is carved in stone. But the government won't see a firm price until it gets close to first delivery, which is nominally expected in 2016.
The cost for 20 years' of in-service support remains a matter of debate, with the air force insisting it will only run in the neighbourhood of an additional $7 billion — a figure the Parliamentary Budget Officer disputes.
Even Pentagon estimates suggest the maintenance bill could run between US$14 billion and US$19 billion.
The cost for 20 years' of in-service support remains a matter of debate, with the air force insisting it will only run in the neighbourhood of an additional $7 billion — a figure the Parliamentary Budget Officer disputes.
Even Pentagon estimates suggest the maintenance bill could run between US$14 billion and US$19 billion.
and
US Air Force sees delay in operational use of the F-35 fighter jet ~ Terminal X
The U.S. Air Force expects to start operational use of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter later than its previous target of 2016, given the Pentagon's plan to slow down production and allow more time for development, a top general said.
"It will move to the right," Lieutenant General Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, told a conference hosted by Credit Suisse and defense consultant Jim McAleese.
Carlisle said the new radar-evading warplane built by Lockheed Martin Corp would reach "initial operational capability" only after achieving certain milestones, including software development, operational test and establishment of a crew of maintainers, Reuters reports.
Air Force officials now expected those milestones to be achieved "later in the decade"
"It will move to the right," Lieutenant General Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, told a conference hosted by Credit Suisse and defense consultant Jim McAleese.
Carlisle said the new radar-evading warplane built by Lockheed Martin Corp would reach "initial operational capability" only after achieving certain milestones, including software development, operational test and establishment of a crew of maintainers, Reuters reports.
Air Force officials now expected those milestones to be achieved "later in the decade"
purchase price of 9billion for 65 frames can be set in stone?
I cannot spell therefor I edit.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: CONUS EAST
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Questions
Used to post here in a different life, many summers ago.
Having kept a "watching brief", I see the standard of discussion is still, in the main, professional though there seem to be a few petulent types in our midst.
Some rather pointed questions that are circling the globe just lobbed on my desk. Am pretty sure most will find of interest but a few others will start (or is that continue) frothing around the mouth over, particularly at the mention of Dr Carlo Kopp.
1. In the post-2015 stealth-on-stealth world, in which Counter-VLO capable A2/AD weapons systems will also abound, what is the role, let alone where is there a role, for the F-35A CTOL JSF other than in operations in low threat, permissive environments; that is, those operational environments in which the legacy aircraft the JSF is intended to replace are already more than effective, as well as far more cost-effective, though none of these aircraft (including the JSF) can assure air parity, even superiority, let alone air dominance in a post-2015 world?
2. As a counter-air fighter aircraft as well as a self-defence capable battlefield interdiction strike/bomber, how can the F-35A CTOL JSF be competitive against supercruising, extremely agile, VLO analogues of the F-22A Raptor, such as the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA and Chengdu J-20, or even the non-VLO Su-35S Super Flanker, when these aircraft almost certainly have, as one of their principal design aims, the ability to compete with and defeat the Raptor?
3. Like the others, this question is extremely important but unlike the others, requires a bit of a pre-amble.
The seminal research and techno-strategic analysis works of Dr Carlo Kopp published since 1998 accurately predicted the emergence and techno/strategic consequences of (A) the Russian Su-35S Super Flanker; (B) advanced, rapidly deployable (i.e. high mobility) highly integrated air defence systems (i.e. Counter-VLO A2/AD weapons systems); and, (C) United States military and fiscal “overstretch”; and, (D) the rise of China and the concept of using military force as a form of coercive soft power.
Unequivocal official acknowledgement of the threats posed by (B), (C) and (D) may be found in the Pentagon’s 2010 QDR; the CSBA think tank papers on Air Force Strategy of 2009 and Air-Sea-Battle of 2010; and, more stridently, in the POTUS Defense Strategic Guidance of January 2012. However, little if any mention has been made in US Military planning documents of the Russian Su-35S Super Flanker or the emergence of the Fifth Generation Fighter analogues of the F-22A Raptor, such as the Russian T-50 PAK-FA and China’s Chengdu J-20.
Independent analyses, employing standard PARCAA* methodologies, of this situation combined with other events and statements (e.g. Slide 8 from JSF JPO Director of Engineering Briefing on JSF Systems Engineering, August 2011 – copy attached) have determined an almost certain probability that consideration let alone inclusion of functional requirements to address these “Reference Threats” could not have been the dominant part of the development of the JSF Operational Requirements Document (ORD) they should have been; nor its approval by the JROC in March 2000; nor, the revalidation of the JSF ORD by the JROC in 2010, following acknowledgement of the 2009 breaches of the Nunn-McCurdy Act.
Could you please check the JSF JPO/PEO records and files, as well as those of the JROC, back to circa 2000 to independently validate and confirm or, if you can, provide any evidence that contradicts/countermands, the results of this PARCAA work?
* PARCAA –Performance Assessment/Root Cause Analysis & Assessment
(Refer the US WSAR Act of 2009 and Systems Engineering Doctrine, Methods & Processes)
4. Do you agree that an independently supervised counter-air profile fly-off between the F-35A CTOL JSF and the F-22A Raptor be the quickest, cheapest and most effective way of getting objective data and reliable answers to these questions; answers that are also devoid of any of the contaminating/corrupting influences of the MICC about which the 34th POTUS warned his fellow Americans?
If you don’t agree, then please explain in PARCAA and the related Systems Engineering terms why that is so?
Having kept a "watching brief", I see the standard of discussion is still, in the main, professional though there seem to be a few petulent types in our midst.
Some rather pointed questions that are circling the globe just lobbed on my desk. Am pretty sure most will find of interest but a few others will start (or is that continue) frothing around the mouth over, particularly at the mention of Dr Carlo Kopp.
1. In the post-2015 stealth-on-stealth world, in which Counter-VLO capable A2/AD weapons systems will also abound, what is the role, let alone where is there a role, for the F-35A CTOL JSF other than in operations in low threat, permissive environments; that is, those operational environments in which the legacy aircraft the JSF is intended to replace are already more than effective, as well as far more cost-effective, though none of these aircraft (including the JSF) can assure air parity, even superiority, let alone air dominance in a post-2015 world?
2. As a counter-air fighter aircraft as well as a self-defence capable battlefield interdiction strike/bomber, how can the F-35A CTOL JSF be competitive against supercruising, extremely agile, VLO analogues of the F-22A Raptor, such as the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA and Chengdu J-20, or even the non-VLO Su-35S Super Flanker, when these aircraft almost certainly have, as one of their principal design aims, the ability to compete with and defeat the Raptor?
3. Like the others, this question is extremely important but unlike the others, requires a bit of a pre-amble.
The seminal research and techno-strategic analysis works of Dr Carlo Kopp published since 1998 accurately predicted the emergence and techno/strategic consequences of (A) the Russian Su-35S Super Flanker; (B) advanced, rapidly deployable (i.e. high mobility) highly integrated air defence systems (i.e. Counter-VLO A2/AD weapons systems); and, (C) United States military and fiscal “overstretch”; and, (D) the rise of China and the concept of using military force as a form of coercive soft power.
Unequivocal official acknowledgement of the threats posed by (B), (C) and (D) may be found in the Pentagon’s 2010 QDR; the CSBA think tank papers on Air Force Strategy of 2009 and Air-Sea-Battle of 2010; and, more stridently, in the POTUS Defense Strategic Guidance of January 2012. However, little if any mention has been made in US Military planning documents of the Russian Su-35S Super Flanker or the emergence of the Fifth Generation Fighter analogues of the F-22A Raptor, such as the Russian T-50 PAK-FA and China’s Chengdu J-20.
Independent analyses, employing standard PARCAA* methodologies, of this situation combined with other events and statements (e.g. Slide 8 from JSF JPO Director of Engineering Briefing on JSF Systems Engineering, August 2011 – copy attached) have determined an almost certain probability that consideration let alone inclusion of functional requirements to address these “Reference Threats” could not have been the dominant part of the development of the JSF Operational Requirements Document (ORD) they should have been; nor its approval by the JROC in March 2000; nor, the revalidation of the JSF ORD by the JROC in 2010, following acknowledgement of the 2009 breaches of the Nunn-McCurdy Act.
Could you please check the JSF JPO/PEO records and files, as well as those of the JROC, back to circa 2000 to independently validate and confirm or, if you can, provide any evidence that contradicts/countermands, the results of this PARCAA work?
* PARCAA –Performance Assessment/Root Cause Analysis & Assessment
(Refer the US WSAR Act of 2009 and Systems Engineering Doctrine, Methods & Processes)
4. Do you agree that an independently supervised counter-air profile fly-off between the F-35A CTOL JSF and the F-22A Raptor be the quickest, cheapest and most effective way of getting objective data and reliable answers to these questions; answers that are also devoid of any of the contaminating/corrupting influences of the MICC about which the 34th POTUS warned his fellow Americans?
If you don’t agree, then please explain in PARCAA and the related Systems Engineering terms why that is so?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you actually think the comparison will occur? If so, would we all line up and buy F 22. Not. Oh well, we'll just buy some PAK from the russkies. No wait, that won't buy us any advantage, will it? Maybe some J 20's then. No, wait, no advantage there, either. There is no doubt the whole process was well and truly f@cked up. But where to from here?
If you want to be competitive, (itself possibly arguable), you really only have 3 choices now. Pay the price demanded and accept the possible shortcomings, buy some PAK or J 20, (see above), or develop your own, yeah that one'll work!
Of course, you could always go the old method of older frames but plenty of them. After all, at 10 or 15 to 1 even the almighty gen 5 fighters won't have it all their own way, will they? No wait, that'll work out more expensive anyway. Everyone seems to coming up with problems, not seeing a lot of solutions tho.
Kopp lost whatever credibility he had with his farcical plans for the pig. Wonderful aircraft that it became, no amount of care and money made it survivable these days.
If you want to be competitive, (itself possibly arguable), you really only have 3 choices now. Pay the price demanded and accept the possible shortcomings, buy some PAK or J 20, (see above), or develop your own, yeah that one'll work!
Of course, you could always go the old method of older frames but plenty of them. After all, at 10 or 15 to 1 even the almighty gen 5 fighters won't have it all their own way, will they? No wait, that'll work out more expensive anyway. Everyone seems to coming up with problems, not seeing a lot of solutions tho.
Kopp lost whatever credibility he had with his farcical plans for the pig. Wonderful aircraft that it became, no amount of care and money made it survivable these days.
Last edited by porch monkey; 14th Mar 2012 at 06:46.
Great set of options, PM. The baby's ugly, but it's your baby now, so cough up the $10 billion in child support like a good chap.
What AFs need to do is evaluate their real options. Staying with the F-35 will leave the US, UK and some others with a mix of -35s and "classic" fighters - that is to say, not stealthy in the 22/35 sense but with signature reduction measures - through the 2020s. The overall coalition force will still be a mix because the US will still be replacing teen-series jets in 2037.
I don't think any adversary will be anything like all-LO before 2030 (although that's a long time to make any predictions).
Regardless of the 4gen/5gen sloganeering by LMT and its cheerleaders, current operational fighter types will have to be kept relevant through the 2020s, as fighters have always evolved - new sensors and weapons. But that will be difficult unless F-35 turns out to be much easier and cheaper to upgrade than the F-22, which has the same kind of architecture (central avionics processing and unique, complex apertures).
And if the F-35 is unaffordable in the required numbers, it isn't an option anyway.... as the F-22 was not, even for the US.
What AFs need to do is evaluate their real options. Staying with the F-35 will leave the US, UK and some others with a mix of -35s and "classic" fighters - that is to say, not stealthy in the 22/35 sense but with signature reduction measures - through the 2020s. The overall coalition force will still be a mix because the US will still be replacing teen-series jets in 2037.
I don't think any adversary will be anything like all-LO before 2030 (although that's a long time to make any predictions).
Regardless of the 4gen/5gen sloganeering by LMT and its cheerleaders, current operational fighter types will have to be kept relevant through the 2020s, as fighters have always evolved - new sensors and weapons. But that will be difficult unless F-35 turns out to be much easier and cheaper to upgrade than the F-22, which has the same kind of architecture (central avionics processing and unique, complex apertures).
And if the F-35 is unaffordable in the required numbers, it isn't an option anyway.... as the F-22 was not, even for the US.
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
All the 4th , 4.5 and 5th generation marketing confusion terminology aside,
which of the current or future Russian or Chinese platforms poses any real treath to the Western fighterr ?
Honestly ,the Mig29 /SU27 and all of their derivatives never had anywhere
near the upperhand against most, if not almost all of their Western counterparts.
I would make an educated guess that with all the possible future upgrades of
'4th generation' fighters with regards to Radar, ECM, ECCM, Networking, engines, etc.... , the latest Flankers or even their PAK-FA or J20's still won't
bridge the gap that has been there post WWII.
The most significant threath that now exists is in the fact that technological information and equipment is now ,more than ever, available on the open market and can be reversed engineered or just implemented in almost all fighters regardless where they came from, no amount of F35 wizardry will change that.
As an example just look at what the IAI can do with a 50 yr old MiG21, after they are done with their upgrades it still is a very potent and dangerous adversary.
For us on the other side of the pond it is now time to put our eggs in our own basket and finnish what we started, the Rafale and Typhoon have to be developped to their full potential and both get their necessary upgrades, it would leave us with a top of the line platform that could keep us on top till 2030-2040 when we could invest in their successors , in the meantime catch up a lot of potential export orders.
This is by no means an anti american move but we shouldn't invest in the folly that is the F35, this is not the next F16-18, it's more like the next F104 and we all know what a miserable failure that was (also LM BTW).
Enough good US hardware we could invest our ever shrinking budgets in, the P8-Poseidon, B737AEW, C17, Chinooks, V22's,.... all make enough sense to be considered .
which of the current or future Russian or Chinese platforms poses any real treath to the Western fighterr ?
Honestly ,the Mig29 /SU27 and all of their derivatives never had anywhere
near the upperhand against most, if not almost all of their Western counterparts.
I would make an educated guess that with all the possible future upgrades of
'4th generation' fighters with regards to Radar, ECM, ECCM, Networking, engines, etc.... , the latest Flankers or even their PAK-FA or J20's still won't
bridge the gap that has been there post WWII.
The most significant threath that now exists is in the fact that technological information and equipment is now ,more than ever, available on the open market and can be reversed engineered or just implemented in almost all fighters regardless where they came from, no amount of F35 wizardry will change that.
As an example just look at what the IAI can do with a 50 yr old MiG21, after they are done with their upgrades it still is a very potent and dangerous adversary.
For us on the other side of the pond it is now time to put our eggs in our own basket and finnish what we started, the Rafale and Typhoon have to be developped to their full potential and both get their necessary upgrades, it would leave us with a top of the line platform that could keep us on top till 2030-2040 when we could invest in their successors , in the meantime catch up a lot of potential export orders.
This is by no means an anti american move but we shouldn't invest in the folly that is the F35, this is not the next F16-18, it's more like the next F104 and we all know what a miserable failure that was (also LM BTW).
Enough good US hardware we could invest our ever shrinking budgets in, the P8-Poseidon, B737AEW, C17, Chinooks, V22's,.... all make enough sense to be considered .
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
F35 costs concern the USAF
WEAR ABC 3 :: Top Stories - Air Force wants F35 locations cut
Bigger Squadron, less bases I wonder which have to close ultimately because of this.
Predictable next step is 30 bases with normal sized squadron meaning 25% less aircraft.
EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE - The Air Force is looking to slash the number of locations where it will base F-35 Joint Strike Fighter squadrons.
The Air Force Times says military leaders are looking to reduce the number of bases from the 40's to the low 30's.
This is meant to bring down the jet's estimated trillion-dollar sustainment costs.
By reducing the number of bases and increasing squadron size the Air Force can save money.
Eglin Air Force Base and Edwards Air Force Base in California currently have F-35's.
Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada is expected to receive operational test jets later this year.
The Air Force Times says military leaders are looking to reduce the number of bases from the 40's to the low 30's.
This is meant to bring down the jet's estimated trillion-dollar sustainment costs.
By reducing the number of bases and increasing squadron size the Air Force can save money.
Eglin Air Force Base and Edwards Air Force Base in California currently have F-35's.
Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada is expected to receive operational test jets later this year.
Predictable next step is 30 bases with normal sized squadron meaning 25% less aircraft.
The Canadian Auditor General's report, including F-35 acquisition costs, is due April 3rd. It is likely to slag off the DND again, as it did the last 2 times, over F-35 estimates/costing.
The Associate Defence Minister has today stated that "All options are on the table" and the Government is committed to a $9bn budget for the CF-18 replacement.
Watch closely for the March 29th Canadian Federal Budget, which is due to lay the groundwork for several years ahead. I think the Conservative Government is more wedded to deficit reduction than it is to the F-35.
My personal guess is that they will delay the decision for 2/3 years, one year at a time, claiming production schedule slippage. Then they'll delay it for one more year for the next election.
Then, if Canada's flush and they win, they'll buy it whatever the price, or it will be Super Hornet.
Mind you, there may be quite a revision on the role depending on World events in the next 5 years! (Arctic/Middle East/China/New US President by then)
The Associate Defence Minister has today stated that "All options are on the table" and the Government is committed to a $9bn budget for the CF-18 replacement.
Watch closely for the March 29th Canadian Federal Budget, which is due to lay the groundwork for several years ahead. I think the Conservative Government is more wedded to deficit reduction than it is to the F-35.
My personal guess is that they will delay the decision for 2/3 years, one year at a time, claiming production schedule slippage. Then they'll delay it for one more year for the next election.
Then, if Canada's flush and they win, they'll buy it whatever the price, or it will be Super Hornet.
Mind you, there may be quite a revision on the role depending on World events in the next 5 years! (Arctic/Middle East/China/New US President by then)
F3WMB -
The government must be hoping that the AG doesn't raise the issues of how and when the operational requirement (that allegedly only JSF can meet) was written, and why nobody else was asked if they could meet it. Due diligence, my
.
The government must be hoping that the AG doesn't raise the issues of how and when the operational requirement (that allegedly only JSF can meet) was written, and why nobody else was asked if they could meet it. Due diligence, my
.
