Trump, UK, Canada, Australia... all canceled or proposed to cancel their ordered F-35, Expensive and Useless jet.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/f-35-could-be-cancelled-or-cut-back-in.html
F-35 could be cancelled or cut back in huge political fight in January and February. National Reviews urges Trump to Cancel F35
brian wang | January 7, 2017 |
Tweet
Pin It
Mike Fredenburg at the National Review urges Trump to cancel the F35.
His arguments are
* negotiating a better price on incomplete, crippled fighters will not save taxpayers any money in the long run — because the prices being negotiated between Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon are prices designed to fool the public about the F-35’s true costs. Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon both know that any “discount” or price reduction negotiated in public will quickly be made up on the back-end
* fatal mistakes made during the conceptual design process well over 20 years ago, the F-35 will forever be crippled by intractable weight and heat issues that ensure that the program will never deliver a reliable, cost-effective fighter.
* on Wednesday, when Inside Defense exposed the fact that the Navy’s F-35C model has design defects that can cause pilots to suffer disorientation and severe pain when undergoing carrier catapult launches. As it stands, Navy pilots have determined the F-35C is not “operationally suitable” for carrier launches. New design changes to the F-35C will be required that could take years — and even our carriers may need to be modified to fix the problem. This issue has been known about for years, but until now it has been concealed from the public.
* The F-35’s severe, ongoing problems with weight have resulted in indefensible decisions affecting plane safety, reliability, and durability — the most egregious example being the removal of hundreds of pounds of equipment designed to keep pilots from dying in fiery explosions. Some of the safety equipment removed includes the fuel tank’s ballistic liner, critical fueldraulic fuses, the flammable coolant shut-off valve, and the dry bay fire-extinguishing unit. The unprecedented and pervasive presence of flammable hydraulic fluid, flammable coolants, and fuel throughout the plane makes the F-35 a flying tinderbox. But without these risky weight-reduction measures, the F-35 will not be able to meet even its bare-minimum contractually mandated range goals.
* A DOT&E memo said that on battlefield F-35s are not an asset. In fact, America’s new fighters will actually have to be protected in combat. Because of numerous performance deficiencies and limited weapons capacity, the so-called operationally capable F-35 will need support to locate and avoid threats, acquire targets, and engage enemy aircraft.
* In order to protect the F-35 from cancellation, the Pentagon has lowered key performance requirements and helped Lockheed cheat so that it could continue the charade that the F-35 will actually meet its bare-minimum threshold ranges.
* the published $32,000-per-flying-hour cost is a made-up number; its real cost per flying hour will likely be closer to the $62,000 of the much less complex F-22. Its truly dismal sustained-sortie-generation rate of one sortie (mission) every three or four days means that, as is the case with our F-22 pilots, F-35 pilots will only get a fraction of the 30 to 40 hours of stick-time (actual flying time) per month necessary to gain and maintain fighter-combat mastery.
The F-35 joint strike fighter program could be terminated after the Donald Trump administration takes office, the Air Force’s top civilian leader said Jan. 6. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James indicated that the top Air Force, Navy and Marine brass will try to defend the program but the president can cancel or cutback the program.
Stealth not certain, especially with stolen stealth secrets
In 2015, Col Michael W. Pietrucha, USAF, wrote a 24 page article in Air and Space Power Journal,”The Comanche and the Albatross: About Our Neck Was Hung”. He argues why the F35 must be cancelled now.
The F35 is based on a belief that radar low observability will remain effective against future air defense threats. Although true for the F-117 against Iraq’s Kari system in 1991, stealthiness is unlikely to remain so against an adversary that has two decades to prepare for US stealth fighters, which have much higher infrared, visual, and emitter signatures than did the F-117.
Outside China and Russia, no massive threat from an advanced integrated air defense system exists. Moreover, China is a poor example of a threat to cite if someone is trying to justify a short-ranged fighter with limited payload flown from island bases within range of overwhelming missile attack. Losses of US aircraft have mainly been helicopters since the Vietnam war and fixed wing losses were not shotdown.
Only Russia and China can pose the kind of antiaccess, area denial (A2AD) environment that justifies a massive investment in stealth.
These facts make the risk calculation involved with prioritizing stealth over performance, range, and weapons loadout inherently suspect—and the F-35 might well be the first modern fighter to have substantially less performance than its predecessors.
Col Michael W. Pietrucha Proposal
• maintain a limited number of F-35As (those already purchased) as a replacement for the capabilities lost upon retirement of the F-117;
• create a modernized Tactical Air Force fleet consisting of a high-low mix of modernized legacy fighters, light attack aircraft, and multipurpose jet trainer / attack aircraft;
• recover some “sunk cost” of the F-35 program by using advanced systems to modernize older fighters, in effect fielding fifth-generation systems in fourth-generation airframes;
• restore the Air Force’s SEAD/EW (Suppression of Enemy Air. Defences – Electronic warfare) fighters and crews;
• expand the service’s global reach capabilities by providing deployable Tactical Air Force assets that can operate from short, rough airstrips on a logistical shoestring
• increase the number of absorbable cockpits to the point where the Air Force can augment the inventory of fighter/attack aviators to meet requirements;
• invest in affordable, exportable “light combat aircraft” derived from Air Education and Training Command’s T-X program;
• allow the Air Guard to maintain its position as the operational reserve and “relief valve” for experienced fighter/attack aviators while recapitalizing its portion of the CAF; and
• build a Tactical Air force that can meet the nation’s demands for air-power capabilities even in the face of increasing fuel costs and decreasing budget
The Gap would not be that big if the F35 were cancelled
It would take close to 2030 to field fixed F35s in large numbers.
China currently only has about 600 modern aircraft and is still many years from sorting out the ability to make competitive jet aircraft engines. Russia also has budget problems and will not ramp up its jet fighters to large numbers that would threaten the US.
SOURCES National Review, National defense magazine
Read next: Air Force getting bids for defensive lasers on fighter jets »
« Elon Musk says Trump will support both renewables and fossil fuels and FAA clears Spacex to launch
Broke Britain could cancel over half the F-35 fighter order – while the world’s militaries move on
Published time: 22 Nov, 2017 20:21 Edited time: 23 Nov, 2017 05:13
Get short URL
F-35 fighter jet © ED JONES / AFP
Britain’s order of F-35 fighter jets may be significantly slashed as the list of problems bedevilling the stealth plane grows, along with the ‘issues’ in the UK's defense budget. Britain has ordered 138 jets. Pilots say the F-35’s will revolutionize air combat as it's the most advanced fighter craft ever assembled.
However, for the first time, officials have suggested that the number could be scaled down as it remains unclear how much each jet will actually cost.
The UK Ministry of Defense (MoD) is likely to pay around £80 million ($103 million) more than its earlier estimate of £9.1 billion ($12bn) for the jets. The spiraling costs are due partly to the fall in the value of the pound, allied to a spate of technical glitches to hit the F-35.
Read more
F-35 fighter worth every penny, says British test pilot – despite long list of faults
At the same time the government is demanding a £30bn ($39bn) saving across Britain’s Army, Navy and Air Force.
MPs on the Commons Defense Committee have now heard it’s not possible to accurately forecast the cost of the fighter jets as the MoD said it would have to “make adjustments in our program accordingly.”
Britain said it would “maintain our plan” to pay for the full order of the Lightning aircraft.
So far Britain signed up for delivery of 48 F-35’s, estimated to cost around £9.1bn.
Permanent Secretary Stephen Lovegrove refused to be drawn on the cost of the rest, while problems are reported during testing in the US.
Lovegrove said it would be “imprudent” and “misleading” to give a figure. This was not well received.
Mark Francois MP, a former defense minister, said the public would be “pretty shocked.”
“Is it any wonder people have some skepticism about budgeting in the Ministry of Defense,” he added.
Julian Lewis MP, committee chairman, indicated this could mean the order is scaled down.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-f35-trudeau-harper-monday-1.3237046
Liberals 'living in a dream world' on F-35 cancellation, Stephen Harper says
Harper accuses Trudeau of putting aerospace industry at risk if fighter jet purchase scrapped
By Kathleen Harris, CBC News Posted: Sep 21, 2015 1:35 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 21, 2015 7:38 PM ET
Harper attacks Trudeau's plan to cancel buying the F35 2:13
Impact of scrapping F-35 plan 5:31
Related Stories
Sparring erupted on the weekend when Trudeau promised to exclude the F-35 from the bidding process. Instead, he said, a Liberal government would opt for a cheaper alternative that would free up more funds for navy ships.
Today, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said the Trudeau plan would "crater" Canada's aerospace industry, while Trudeau hit back, saying Harper's "dream" aircraft would be a "nightmare" for the Canadian taxpayer.
"The Liberal Party is living in a dream world if they think we can pull out of the development project of the F-35 and not lose business," Harper said. "I don't know what planet they're living on.
"Whether it's his statements on the aerospace industry, his statements on the deficit, you name it. It shows his disconnect and a profound lack of understanding about the Canadian economy."
The Conservatives announced an agreement in principle in 2010 to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35s, a single-engine "stealth" fighter. But the purchase plan was put on hold two years later amid growing controversies around costs and other problems. An auditor general's report accused the government of fudging cost projections without sufficient research.
Hundreds of millions spent on F-35 development
Canada has invested hundreds of millions of dollars on the development of the F-35, money that has allowed Canadian companies to participate in contracts related to the program. That participation did not oblige Canada to actually buy any of the planes.
As of summer 2014, 33 Canadian companies had contracts worth $637 million U.S.
Trudeau: F-35 jets would be a 'nightmare' for taxpayers2:34
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair called Trudeau's move to exclude an option in the midst of a procurement process "one of the most surprising things" he has heard the Liberal leader say so far in the campaign.
He said the move showed a "total lack of experience."
"How can he decide the result in advance of the process? You can't do that. The basic rule of public administration is you define what you need, then you go to a public tender process and the lowest conforming bidder gets the contract," he said.
Mulcair said both his opponents have it wrong. While the Liberals are ruling out an option without having all the facts, Harper has practised "decision-based fact making" by pursuing the F-35 at all costs.
The NDP, in contrast, would embark on an open procurement process to get the right fighter jets in the air quickly, he said.
"Because of years of indolence and lost advantage and potential by the Conservatives, we're in a tough bind," he said. "So we're going to try to get this right. We're going to define quickly what we need. We'll start a process that will get us a fighter jet rapidly because our women and men in uniform need that, and Canada needs it" as part of our defence.
Trudeau said while Canada took part in the development program, it has no obligation to purchase planes that have been plagued with problems.
Problems, skyrocketing costs
"It no longer makes sense, if it ever did, to have a stealth, first-strike capacity fifth-generation fighter," he said. "There are many other fighters at much lower price points that we can use that have been proven, that we will actually be able to deliver in a timely way to replace our CF-18s and make sure our military has the planes it needs and also the ships we need to continue to be the country we expect us to be."
Dave Perry, senior security and defence analyst at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said the Conservative government's record has been "mixed" when it comes to military procurement, with the fighter jet file being the biggest problem in the last four years. He said it's difficult to determine the effect on the domestic aerospace industry if Canada ultimately proceeds with the F-35 or chooses another fighter.
"The aerospace industry in Canada has dozens of different tasks and hundreds of companies, not all of which has won a contract for F-35," he said. "So we wouldn't lose billions in contracts, we would forgo the potential to win them if we went a different way."
Kristen VanderHoek, spokeswoman for the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, said as a matter of policy the association does not comment on specific government procurement programs, so she could not speak about the potential loss or gain of regional benefits attached to the F-35 decision.
The F-35 program was developed by Lockheed Martin, and was designed to promote a common system between allied partners including the U.S, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, Norway and Australia.
The claims and counterclaims being cast about by the parties don't tell the entire story, however.
Trudeau did not specify how much he hoped to save by forgoing the F-35 purchase in favour of an open competition for a less-expensive plane. Background material issued by the party put the "fly-away" cost of the F-35 at $175 million per plane and the price of the rival F-18 Super Hornet at $65 million.
But $175 million is the price for the prototype phase of the project, not the actual cost of the planes once production numbers rise, which is pegged to be about $75 million US per jet, according to Lockheed Martin.
And Harper's assertion that abandoning the F-35 would wreck Canada's aerospace industry ignores that other manufacturing firms, including F-18 maker Boeing, also offer domestic supply chain opportunities.
As the politicking over the planes continues, the company at the centre of the debate insists it has the best jet for the job.
"We are supporting the Canadian government as they work through their decision process. We believe the F-35 is the best solution for Canada's fighter defence needs," Lockheed Martin spokesman Michael Rein said in a statement to CBC News.
Report Typo or Error Send Feedback
To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.
By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.
https://www.defensetech.org/2015/07...els-order-for-the-f-35b-joint-strike-fighter/
Australian Navy Backs Off From F-35B Joint Strike Fighter
TOPICS:AirAustraliaF-35F-35 WatchF-35BJoint Strike FighterLockheed MartinMarine CorpsNavySeaSea Services
Posted By: Kris Osborn July 10, 2015
The Australian military has decided to cancel plans to purchase F-35B Joint Strike Fighter short-take-off-and-vertical landing aircraft and place 12 of the aircraft on two of their larger assault ships, citing the challenges of needing to rework the ships to accommodate the plane, according to published reports.
“Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy’s two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped,” writes The Australian Financial Review.
The two assault ships, which are the largest in the Australian Navy, would need a massive amount of modifications in order to host the F-35B, the report said.
“The jump-jet proposal would involve extensive modifications to the ships, including new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat-resistant decking, restructuring of fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars,” The Australian Financial Review reported.
The U.S. Navy has made progress with modifications to its first America-class amphibious assault ship, the USS America, in order to improve its ability to properly host the Marine Corps’ F-35B.
Some of the modifications involve fortifying the ship’s deck such that it can withstand the heat generated by the vertical take-off and landing of the F-35B, Navy officials said.
The America’s first deployment is now slated for Spring 2016, Navy officials have said.
In total, the America is configured to house up to 31 aircraft including as many as 12 MV-22 Ospreys and the CH-53 Super Stallion, AH-1Z Super Cobra, UH-1Y Huey, F-35 B Short-take-off-and-landing Joint Strike Fighter and MH-60 Sea Hawk helicopter.
Unlike previous Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, the America will not have a well-deck to launch connector vehicles that transport Marines and equipment from ship to shore over water. Instead, the America is specifically engineered for aviation. Compared with prior amphibs, the America has a larger deck space and hangar area for aircraft.
— Kris Osborn can be reached at [email protected]
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24012/canada-f-18-order/
Canada Buys New F-18s After Canceling Its Order for the F-35
The Great White North selects the F/A-18 Super Hornet as an interim fighter jet.
By Kyle Mizokami
Nov 22, 2016
The Canadian government has announced plans to acquire F/A-18E/F Super Hornet multi-role fighters. Ottawa wants to secure a modest number of the jets until it decides on a real replacement for its current fleet of legacy Hornet fighters—which won't be the F-35.
During the 1980s, Canada bought 138CF-18 Hornets (its designation for the Boeing F/A-18A Hornet). Canadian CF-18s flew combat missions in the Persian Gulf War, NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia, Libya, and most recently over Iraq against the Islamic State. Despite modest upgrades, however, such as the ability to carry the beyond visual range AMRAAM missile, Joint Directed Attack Munition satellite-guided bombs and Link 16 data communications, the planes are increasingly outdated.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
The previous Canadian administration had the country lined up to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed as part of his election campaign to cancel the purchase on the grounds a real competition hadn't taken place and that such an expensive fighter was unnecessary. True to his word, Trudeau canceled Canada's planned purchase of the F-35 and announced a new, open competition for a permanent replacement would be forthcoming.
The new plan is for Canada to acquire 18 F/A-18 Super Hornets as a stopgap measure until the permanent replacement fighter is announced. The government press release doesn't use the words "purchase" or "buy", saying they will be used "for an interim period of time". That leaves open the possibility the jets will be leased from Boeing.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Related Story
The Super Hornet is a practical replacement for the CF-18 Hornet. The "Super Bug" is bigger, with a longer range and greater weapons payload than the CF-18. Although not as stealthy as the F-35, the Super Hornet was designed with some radar cross reduction features that make it more difficult for enemy radar to detect. The improved Hornet also has a high level of commonality with older Hornets, particularly weapons and the engine, meaning Canadian air crews will get up to speed on it quicker than a brand-new plane.
Canada's new interim fighter could even be the new Advanced Super Hornet currently being marketed by Boeing to India. The improved design includes an infra-red search and track sensor for air-to-air and air-to-ground combat, conformal fuel tanks that sit above the wings, and an enclosed weapons pod designed to hide bombs and missiles in a stealthy enclosure to reduce their radar signature.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
A F/A-18F Super Hornet refuels a F/A-18C Hornet in midair. U.S. Navy photo.
How would Canada use 18 new Super Hornets? The new jets would be more survivable over modern battlefields, especially against Russian air defenses. The new planes could also be paired with older jets, their newer APG-79 active electronically scanned array radars scanning ahead for aerial threats instead of the older radars on current CF-18. The APG-79 has a lower probability of intercept, making it harder for enemy radar warning receivers to detect. The Super Hornets could then share data with the CF-18s through the Link 16 system. One last benefit to Canada: the Super Hornet could be used as an aerial tanker for CF-18s, extending their range.
This interim acquisition just kicks the can a little bit down the road. Canada still needs at least one hundred new fighters, and it needs them very soon. The Super Hornet seems to be the frontrunner, but don't count the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter out yet. As the plane continues to mature it's looking to be the plane Lockheed Martin has promised it will be, and per-unit costs are dropping to the point where the plane is becoming a serious competitor to the Super Hornet.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Share
Tweet
Email
More From Weapons
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/f-35-could-be-cancelled-or-cut-back-in.html
F-35 could be cancelled or cut back in huge political fight in January and February. National Reviews urges Trump to Cancel F35
brian wang | January 7, 2017 |
Tweet
Pin It
Mike Fredenburg at the National Review urges Trump to cancel the F35.
His arguments are
* negotiating a better price on incomplete, crippled fighters will not save taxpayers any money in the long run — because the prices being negotiated between Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon are prices designed to fool the public about the F-35’s true costs. Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon both know that any “discount” or price reduction negotiated in public will quickly be made up on the back-end
* fatal mistakes made during the conceptual design process well over 20 years ago, the F-35 will forever be crippled by intractable weight and heat issues that ensure that the program will never deliver a reliable, cost-effective fighter.
* on Wednesday, when Inside Defense exposed the fact that the Navy’s F-35C model has design defects that can cause pilots to suffer disorientation and severe pain when undergoing carrier catapult launches. As it stands, Navy pilots have determined the F-35C is not “operationally suitable” for carrier launches. New design changes to the F-35C will be required that could take years — and even our carriers may need to be modified to fix the problem. This issue has been known about for years, but until now it has been concealed from the public.
* The F-35’s severe, ongoing problems with weight have resulted in indefensible decisions affecting plane safety, reliability, and durability — the most egregious example being the removal of hundreds of pounds of equipment designed to keep pilots from dying in fiery explosions. Some of the safety equipment removed includes the fuel tank’s ballistic liner, critical fueldraulic fuses, the flammable coolant shut-off valve, and the dry bay fire-extinguishing unit. The unprecedented and pervasive presence of flammable hydraulic fluid, flammable coolants, and fuel throughout the plane makes the F-35 a flying tinderbox. But without these risky weight-reduction measures, the F-35 will not be able to meet even its bare-minimum contractually mandated range goals.
* A DOT&E memo said that on battlefield F-35s are not an asset. In fact, America’s new fighters will actually have to be protected in combat. Because of numerous performance deficiencies and limited weapons capacity, the so-called operationally capable F-35 will need support to locate and avoid threats, acquire targets, and engage enemy aircraft.
* In order to protect the F-35 from cancellation, the Pentagon has lowered key performance requirements and helped Lockheed cheat so that it could continue the charade that the F-35 will actually meet its bare-minimum threshold ranges.
* the published $32,000-per-flying-hour cost is a made-up number; its real cost per flying hour will likely be closer to the $62,000 of the much less complex F-22. Its truly dismal sustained-sortie-generation rate of one sortie (mission) every three or four days means that, as is the case with our F-22 pilots, F-35 pilots will only get a fraction of the 30 to 40 hours of stick-time (actual flying time) per month necessary to gain and maintain fighter-combat mastery.
The F-35 joint strike fighter program could be terminated after the Donald Trump administration takes office, the Air Force’s top civilian leader said Jan. 6. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James indicated that the top Air Force, Navy and Marine brass will try to defend the program but the president can cancel or cutback the program.
Stealth not certain, especially with stolen stealth secrets
In 2015, Col Michael W. Pietrucha, USAF, wrote a 24 page article in Air and Space Power Journal,”The Comanche and the Albatross: About Our Neck Was Hung”. He argues why the F35 must be cancelled now.
The F35 is based on a belief that radar low observability will remain effective against future air defense threats. Although true for the F-117 against Iraq’s Kari system in 1991, stealthiness is unlikely to remain so against an adversary that has two decades to prepare for US stealth fighters, which have much higher infrared, visual, and emitter signatures than did the F-117.
Outside China and Russia, no massive threat from an advanced integrated air defense system exists. Moreover, China is a poor example of a threat to cite if someone is trying to justify a short-ranged fighter with limited payload flown from island bases within range of overwhelming missile attack. Losses of US aircraft have mainly been helicopters since the Vietnam war and fixed wing losses were not shotdown.
Only Russia and China can pose the kind of antiaccess, area denial (A2AD) environment that justifies a massive investment in stealth.
These facts make the risk calculation involved with prioritizing stealth over performance, range, and weapons loadout inherently suspect—and the F-35 might well be the first modern fighter to have substantially less performance than its predecessors.
Col Michael W. Pietrucha Proposal
• maintain a limited number of F-35As (those already purchased) as a replacement for the capabilities lost upon retirement of the F-117;
• create a modernized Tactical Air Force fleet consisting of a high-low mix of modernized legacy fighters, light attack aircraft, and multipurpose jet trainer / attack aircraft;
• recover some “sunk cost” of the F-35 program by using advanced systems to modernize older fighters, in effect fielding fifth-generation systems in fourth-generation airframes;
• restore the Air Force’s SEAD/EW (Suppression of Enemy Air. Defences – Electronic warfare) fighters and crews;
• expand the service’s global reach capabilities by providing deployable Tactical Air Force assets that can operate from short, rough airstrips on a logistical shoestring
• increase the number of absorbable cockpits to the point where the Air Force can augment the inventory of fighter/attack aviators to meet requirements;
• invest in affordable, exportable “light combat aircraft” derived from Air Education and Training Command’s T-X program;
• allow the Air Guard to maintain its position as the operational reserve and “relief valve” for experienced fighter/attack aviators while recapitalizing its portion of the CAF; and
• build a Tactical Air force that can meet the nation’s demands for air-power capabilities even in the face of increasing fuel costs and decreasing budget
The Gap would not be that big if the F35 were cancelled
It would take close to 2030 to field fixed F35s in large numbers.
China currently only has about 600 modern aircraft and is still many years from sorting out the ability to make competitive jet aircraft engines. Russia also has budget problems and will not ramp up its jet fighters to large numbers that would threaten the US.
SOURCES National Review, National defense magazine
Read next: Air Force getting bids for defensive lasers on fighter jets »
« Elon Musk says Trump will support both renewables and fossil fuels and FAA clears Spacex to launch
Broke Britain could cancel over half the F-35 fighter order – while the world’s militaries move on
Published time: 22 Nov, 2017 20:21 Edited time: 23 Nov, 2017 05:13
Get short URL
F-35 fighter jet © ED JONES / AFP
Britain’s order of F-35 fighter jets may be significantly slashed as the list of problems bedevilling the stealth plane grows, along with the ‘issues’ in the UK's defense budget. Britain has ordered 138 jets. Pilots say the F-35’s will revolutionize air combat as it's the most advanced fighter craft ever assembled.
However, for the first time, officials have suggested that the number could be scaled down as it remains unclear how much each jet will actually cost.
The UK Ministry of Defense (MoD) is likely to pay around £80 million ($103 million) more than its earlier estimate of £9.1 billion ($12bn) for the jets. The spiraling costs are due partly to the fall in the value of the pound, allied to a spate of technical glitches to hit the F-35.
Read more
F-35 fighter worth every penny, says British test pilot – despite long list of faults At the same time the government is demanding a £30bn ($39bn) saving across Britain’s Army, Navy and Air Force.
MPs on the Commons Defense Committee have now heard it’s not possible to accurately forecast the cost of the fighter jets as the MoD said it would have to “make adjustments in our program accordingly.”
Britain said it would “maintain our plan” to pay for the full order of the Lightning aircraft.
So far Britain signed up for delivery of 48 F-35’s, estimated to cost around £9.1bn.
Permanent Secretary Stephen Lovegrove refused to be drawn on the cost of the rest, while problems are reported during testing in the US.
Lovegrove said it would be “imprudent” and “misleading” to give a figure. This was not well received.
Mark Francois MP, a former defense minister, said the public would be “pretty shocked.”
“Is it any wonder people have some skepticism about budgeting in the Ministry of Defense,” he added.
Julian Lewis MP, committee chairman, indicated this could mean the order is scaled down.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-f35-trudeau-harper-monday-1.3237046
Liberals 'living in a dream world' on F-35 cancellation, Stephen Harper says
Harper accuses Trudeau of putting aerospace industry at risk if fighter jet purchase scrapped
By Kathleen Harris, CBC News Posted: Sep 21, 2015 1:35 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 21, 2015 7:38 PM ET
Harper attacks Trudeau's plan to cancel buying the F35 2:13
Impact of scrapping F-35 plan 5:31
Related Stories
- Get breaking news from the campaign trail
- Liberals' Justin Trudeau vows to scrap F-35 fighter jet program
- Fallout from F-35 fighter jet procurement hits Canada's allied operations
Sparring erupted on the weekend when Trudeau promised to exclude the F-35 from the bidding process. Instead, he said, a Liberal government would opt for a cheaper alternative that would free up more funds for navy ships.
Today, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said the Trudeau plan would "crater" Canada's aerospace industry, while Trudeau hit back, saying Harper's "dream" aircraft would be a "nightmare" for the Canadian taxpayer.
- F-35 purchase cost could rise to replace lost aircraft
- F-35 procurement problems could hurt relations
"The Liberal Party is living in a dream world if they think we can pull out of the development project of the F-35 and not lose business," Harper said. "I don't know what planet they're living on.
"Whether it's his statements on the aerospace industry, his statements on the deficit, you name it. It shows his disconnect and a profound lack of understanding about the Canadian economy."
The Conservatives announced an agreement in principle in 2010 to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35s, a single-engine "stealth" fighter. But the purchase plan was put on hold two years later amid growing controversies around costs and other problems. An auditor general's report accused the government of fudging cost projections without sufficient research.
Hundreds of millions spent on F-35 development
Canada has invested hundreds of millions of dollars on the development of the F-35, money that has allowed Canadian companies to participate in contracts related to the program. That participation did not oblige Canada to actually buy any of the planes.
As of summer 2014, 33 Canadian companies had contracts worth $637 million U.S.
Trudeau: F-35 jets would be a 'nightmare' for taxpayers2:34
NDP Leader Tom Mulcair called Trudeau's move to exclude an option in the midst of a procurement process "one of the most surprising things" he has heard the Liberal leader say so far in the campaign.
He said the move showed a "total lack of experience."
"How can he decide the result in advance of the process? You can't do that. The basic rule of public administration is you define what you need, then you go to a public tender process and the lowest conforming bidder gets the contract," he said.
Mulcair said both his opponents have it wrong. While the Liberals are ruling out an option without having all the facts, Harper has practised "decision-based fact making" by pursuing the F-35 at all costs.
The NDP, in contrast, would embark on an open procurement process to get the right fighter jets in the air quickly, he said.
"Because of years of indolence and lost advantage and potential by the Conservatives, we're in a tough bind," he said. "So we're going to try to get this right. We're going to define quickly what we need. We'll start a process that will get us a fighter jet rapidly because our women and men in uniform need that, and Canada needs it" as part of our defence.
Trudeau said while Canada took part in the development program, it has no obligation to purchase planes that have been plagued with problems.
Problems, skyrocketing costs
"It no longer makes sense, if it ever did, to have a stealth, first-strike capacity fifth-generation fighter," he said. "There are many other fighters at much lower price points that we can use that have been proven, that we will actually be able to deliver in a timely way to replace our CF-18s and make sure our military has the planes it needs and also the ships we need to continue to be the country we expect us to be."
Dave Perry, senior security and defence analyst at the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said the Conservative government's record has been "mixed" when it comes to military procurement, with the fighter jet file being the biggest problem in the last four years. He said it's difficult to determine the effect on the domestic aerospace industry if Canada ultimately proceeds with the F-35 or chooses another fighter.
"The aerospace industry in Canada has dozens of different tasks and hundreds of companies, not all of which has won a contract for F-35," he said. "So we wouldn't lose billions in contracts, we would forgo the potential to win them if we went a different way."
Kristen VanderHoek, spokeswoman for the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, said as a matter of policy the association does not comment on specific government procurement programs, so she could not speak about the potential loss or gain of regional benefits attached to the F-35 decision.
The F-35 program was developed by Lockheed Martin, and was designed to promote a common system between allied partners including the U.S, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, Norway and Australia.
The claims and counterclaims being cast about by the parties don't tell the entire story, however.
Trudeau did not specify how much he hoped to save by forgoing the F-35 purchase in favour of an open competition for a less-expensive plane. Background material issued by the party put the "fly-away" cost of the F-35 at $175 million per plane and the price of the rival F-18 Super Hornet at $65 million.
But $175 million is the price for the prototype phase of the project, not the actual cost of the planes once production numbers rise, which is pegged to be about $75 million US per jet, according to Lockheed Martin.
And Harper's assertion that abandoning the F-35 would wreck Canada's aerospace industry ignores that other manufacturing firms, including F-18 maker Boeing, also offer domestic supply chain opportunities.
As the politicking over the planes continues, the company at the centre of the debate insists it has the best jet for the job.
"We are supporting the Canadian government as they work through their decision process. We believe the F-35 is the best solution for Canada's fighter defence needs," Lockheed Martin spokesman Michael Rein said in a statement to CBC News.
Report Typo or Error Send Feedback
To encourage thoughtful and respectful conversations, first and last names will appear with each submission to CBC/Radio-Canada's online communities (except in children and youth-oriented communities). Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted.
By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines. Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time.
https://www.defensetech.org/2015/07...els-order-for-the-f-35b-joint-strike-fighter/
Australian Navy Backs Off From F-35B Joint Strike Fighter
TOPICS:AirAustraliaF-35F-35 WatchF-35BJoint Strike FighterLockheed MartinMarine CorpsNavySeaSea Services
Posted By: Kris Osborn July 10, 2015
The Australian military has decided to cancel plans to purchase F-35B Joint Strike Fighter short-take-off-and-vertical landing aircraft and place 12 of the aircraft on two of their larger assault ships, citing the challenges of needing to rework the ships to accommodate the plane, according to published reports.“Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s proposal to put F-35 fighter jets on the Navy’s two 27,000-tonne troop transport assault ships has been quietly dropped,” writes The Australian Financial Review.
The two assault ships, which are the largest in the Australian Navy, would need a massive amount of modifications in order to host the F-35B, the report said.
“The jump-jet proposal would involve extensive modifications to the ships, including new radar systems, instrument landing systems, heat-resistant decking, restructuring of fuel storage and fuel lines, and storage hangars,” The Australian Financial Review reported.
The U.S. Navy has made progress with modifications to its first America-class amphibious assault ship, the USS America, in order to improve its ability to properly host the Marine Corps’ F-35B.
Some of the modifications involve fortifying the ship’s deck such that it can withstand the heat generated by the vertical take-off and landing of the F-35B, Navy officials said.
The America’s first deployment is now slated for Spring 2016, Navy officials have said.
In total, the America is configured to house up to 31 aircraft including as many as 12 MV-22 Ospreys and the CH-53 Super Stallion, AH-1Z Super Cobra, UH-1Y Huey, F-35 B Short-take-off-and-landing Joint Strike Fighter and MH-60 Sea Hawk helicopter.
Unlike previous Wasp-class amphibious assault ships, the America will not have a well-deck to launch connector vehicles that transport Marines and equipment from ship to shore over water. Instead, the America is specifically engineered for aviation. Compared with prior amphibs, the America has a larger deck space and hangar area for aircraft.
— Kris Osborn can be reached at [email protected]
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24012/canada-f-18-order/
Canada Buys New F-18s After Canceling Its Order for the F-35
The Great White North selects the F/A-18 Super Hornet as an interim fighter jet.
By Kyle Mizokami
Nov 22, 2016
The Canadian government has announced plans to acquire F/A-18E/F Super Hornet multi-role fighters. Ottawa wants to secure a modest number of the jets until it decides on a real replacement for its current fleet of legacy Hornet fighters—which won't be the F-35.
During the 1980s, Canada bought 138CF-18 Hornets (its designation for the Boeing F/A-18A Hornet). Canadian CF-18s flew combat missions in the Persian Gulf War, NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia, Libya, and most recently over Iraq against the Islamic State. Despite modest upgrades, however, such as the ability to carry the beyond visual range AMRAAM missile, Joint Directed Attack Munition satellite-guided bombs and Link 16 data communications, the planes are increasingly outdated.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
The previous Canadian administration had the country lined up to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed as part of his election campaign to cancel the purchase on the grounds a real competition hadn't taken place and that such an expensive fighter was unnecessary. True to his word, Trudeau canceled Canada's planned purchase of the F-35 and announced a new, open competition for a permanent replacement would be forthcoming.
The new plan is for Canada to acquire 18 F/A-18 Super Hornets as a stopgap measure until the permanent replacement fighter is announced. The government press release doesn't use the words "purchase" or "buy", saying they will be used "for an interim period of time". That leaves open the possibility the jets will be leased from Boeing.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Related Story
The Super Hornet is a practical replacement for the CF-18 Hornet. The "Super Bug" is bigger, with a longer range and greater weapons payload than the CF-18. Although not as stealthy as the F-35, the Super Hornet was designed with some radar cross reduction features that make it more difficult for enemy radar to detect. The improved Hornet also has a high level of commonality with older Hornets, particularly weapons and the engine, meaning Canadian air crews will get up to speed on it quicker than a brand-new plane.
Canada's new interim fighter could even be the new Advanced Super Hornet currently being marketed by Boeing to India. The improved design includes an infra-red search and track sensor for air-to-air and air-to-ground combat, conformal fuel tanks that sit above the wings, and an enclosed weapons pod designed to hide bombs and missiles in a stealthy enclosure to reduce their radar signature.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
A F/A-18F Super Hornet refuels a F/A-18C Hornet in midair. U.S. Navy photo.
How would Canada use 18 new Super Hornets? The new jets would be more survivable over modern battlefields, especially against Russian air defenses. The new planes could also be paired with older jets, their newer APG-79 active electronically scanned array radars scanning ahead for aerial threats instead of the older radars on current CF-18. The APG-79 has a lower probability of intercept, making it harder for enemy radar warning receivers to detect. The Super Hornets could then share data with the CF-18s through the Link 16 system. One last benefit to Canada: the Super Hornet could be used as an aerial tanker for CF-18s, extending their range.
This interim acquisition just kicks the can a little bit down the road. Canada still needs at least one hundred new fighters, and it needs them very soon. The Super Hornet seems to be the frontrunner, but don't count the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter out yet. As the plane continues to mature it's looking to be the plane Lockheed Martin has promised it will be, and per-unit costs are dropping to the point where the plane is becoming a serious competitor to the Super Hornet.
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Share
Tweet
More From Weapons
