18 replies to this topic

[Maverick]

Den Tandt: Fantino caught in F-35 crosshairs






By Michael Den Tandt, Postmedia News February 16, 2012






Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, Also known as Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in flight.

Photograph by: Handout , Lockheed Martin Aeronautics


When Julian Fantino got the call to enter cabinet as associate defence minister he must have thought he'd died and gone to heaven. Great salary, limo and driver, and yet another post of prestige and renown in what for him was a long string of them. And, there was always the off-chance he'd supplant star-crossed Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

Indeed it was assumed in Conservative circles, at the time of Fantino's elevation, that MacKay was being bird-dogged and on his way to being sidelined, whether because of personal tensions between he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, or because he was deemed a potential future leadership rival.

Unfortunately for Fantino, it hasn't turned out quite that way. He's been left to carry the can for months, virtually on his own, for the problem-plagued F-35 fighter program. Now that the wheels are truly coming off, with rising costs pushing the Royal Canadian Air Force's minimum 65-plane requirement beyond reach, Fantino has been reduced to wanly repeating talking points that no one, perhaps not even him, believes.

Wednesday in the House, for the first time, the minister appeared to concede that his mantra will soon undergo a revision. "Stay tuned," he said after interim leader Bob Rae asked a series of pointed, probing questions about how many F-35s the government now thinks it can buy, within its stated $9-billion budget. Thursday, the opposition pressed the attack: "How many, how much, and when?"

Tellingly it was MacKay who took point Thursday. But though his standup is far stronger than Fantino's, his answers were no more besmirched by any actual content. For the opposition, this has become like shooting fish in a barrel. "It's the gift that keeps on giving," said one veteran politico.

Here's the difficulty: No one knows the price, not even the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. From the outset, price estimates have been just that, because the unit cost depends, in any given year, on how many planes are built that year. If all nine of the original international partners — the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands — were following through on their orders, on the original timetable, Ottawa might still be able to buy 65 planes on budget (though even that has long been in dispute).

But that's demonstrably not the case now. This week the Pentagon confirmed the U.S. military itself is trimming its order, due to spending cuts and technological problems. Though it insists it still plans to buy 2,443 of the jets in the decades ahead, it has postponed orders for 179 units over the next five years, garnering savings of $15.1-billion U.S..

Italy announced this week it is cutting its order to 90 planes from 131. Turkey has trimmed its order and the British have yet to decide how many of the planes they will buy. Taken together that makes the unit cost for Canada a black box. "I don't think anybody in the world knows the price of the F-35s at this point," said Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, who has long supported the project.

Here's why the numbers matter. Sixty-five planes based in Cold Lake, Alta., and Bagotville, Que., according to Defence sources, is the minimum required to fulfil the primary mission of the Royal Canadian Air Force, which is to provide 24-hour air cover over four Canadian cities in the event of a "9/11" event.

Though armed drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper — which are indeed being eyed by the government, sources confirm, notwithstanding Fantino's dismissal of this Wednesday — can complement fighters, they are not a substitute. Drones could be used overseas, on border patrol or marine interdiction. But for overflights of Canadian cities, sources say, only piloted aircraft offer the necessary degree of flexibility, versatility, reliability and safety.

Therefore, fielding a reduced number of F-35s won't do the job, drones or no drones. And that makes it increasingly likely that the RCAF will be asked to refurbish a number of its aging CF-18s and keep them flying until 2028, long past their best-before date. A number of F-35s would then be added to the mix. But that scenario creates problems, too, because of the costs of maintaining two fleets with different systems. "It's a mess," concludes one industry source.

The irony? Not all of this is the government's fault. It signed onto the F-35 program in good faith. The cost increases now stem from events in the United States and elsewhere, not in Canada. But in their dogged insistence on defending this program, come what may, the Tories have painted themselves into a corner, from which there is now no painless exist.

It's difficult to see how that doesn't roll back on one defence minister or another, sooner or later. Odds are it won't be MacKay.

http://www.canada.co...5541/story.html

[Fido]

A lot of pissing and moaning from the critics, but (as usual) not a concrete alternate idea. They only want to embarass someone and not actually help out.

[J.O.]

Politics aside, if the F35 was a dog, someone would have put it out of its misery a long time ago. The US simply can't afford them today or tomorrow but no one has the guts to admit it. And without US support, it's a boat that won't float.

[dagger]

Fido, on 19 February 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

A lot of pissing and moaning from the critics, but (as usual) not a concrete alternate idea. They only want to embarass someone and not actually help out.

Sometimes in this world, there isn't an easy or obvious alternative. The US, at least, has the F-22 and will buy enough F-35s to keep the program going. They need state of the art for their military missions. We don't. We need a great patrol aircraft for sovereignty, a domestic cover for major cities (i.e. shadowing civilian aircraft during a crisis), and participating in NATO or UN missions where the good guys have overwhelming or total air sovereignty and there is no need for the absolute top of the line. When was the last time we lost a fighter in combat? Korea?

My suggestion all along was the Super Hornet for the short to medium term. The Super Hornet has the advantage of being a twin engine plane. I hadn't thought of drones, but long-range drones could handle some of the sovereignty missions. I am not well acquainted with the European jet fighters.

[malcolm]

dagger, on 20 February 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

Sometimes in this world, there isn't an easy or obvious alternative. The US, at least, has the F-22 and will buy enough F-35s to keep the program going. They need state of the art for their military missions. We don't. We need a great patrol aircraft for sovereignty, a domestic cover for major cities (i.e. shadowing civilian aircraft during a crisis), and participating in NATO or UN missions where the good guys have overwhelming or total air sovereignty and there is no need for the absolute top of the line. When was the last time we lost a fighter in combat? Korea?

My suggestion all along was the Super Hornet for the short to medium term. The Super Hornet has the advantage of being a twin engine plane. I hadn't thought of drones, but long-range drones could handle some of the sovereignty missions. I am not well acquainted with the European jet fighters.

The F35 is a purpose built Cadillac and I am not sure that it fits our needs either (agreeing with Dagger...... Oh My!) As far as what aircraft we should get, that is best left up to those who design and fly the missions with the politicians keeping their mitts out. One only has to remember the BC FastCat program to see how far wrong a basic idea can go if the politicians are allowed to run wild.

[conehead]

dagger, on 20 February 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

My suggestion all along was the Super Hornet for the short to medium term. The Super Hornet has the advantage of being a twin engine plane.

I agree 100%.

[J.O.]

malcolm, on 20 February 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

The F35 is a purpose built Cadillac and I am not sure that it fits our needs either (agreeing with Dagger...... Oh My!)

The planet is about to stop rotating!

malcolm, on 20 February 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

As far as what aircraft we should get, that is best left up to those who design and fly the missions with the politicians keeping their mitts out. One only has to remember the BC FastCat program to see how far wrong a basic idea can go if the politicians are allowed to run wild.

The term "a snowball's chance in hell" comes to mind.

[Maverick]

Well, for me I think I would go with an off-the-shelf F-15E. It is more capable, very mature and truly is a long range fighter-bomber that can admirably compete with any 4th generation fighter Heads up with the F-22, Pak-FA or J-20 not so much but as dagger said, we will only use these in anger with overpowering air superiority anyway. We may even be able to buy used ones from the USAF, a'la F-101B's...

[dagger]

malcolm, on 20 February 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

The F35 is a purpose built Cadillac and I am not sure that it fits our needs either (agreeing with Dagger...... Oh My!) As far as what aircraft we should get, that is best left up to those who design and fly the missions with the politicians keeping their mitts out. One only has to remember the BC FastCat program to see how far wrong a basic idea can go if the politicians are allowed to run wild.

More like a Cadillac trying to serve every conceivable market niche, carrier-based, air force, STOL... That was probably mistake #1, and a big one.

[malcolm]

dagger, on 20 February 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

More like a Cadillac trying to serve every conceivable market niche, carrier-based, air force, STOL... That was probably mistake #1, and a big one.

I was thinking more about the price and the ++++ effect it would have on the US Aerospace Industry. Can you just imagine the number of jobs that would be needed to build and maintain a fleet of those Cadillacs?

[DEFCON]

If, and that's probably a big 'if', we need new fighters, my vote would be for the F-18 E/F.

[W5]

Top Gun 2 will rock the F-35

http://www.flightglo...the-f-35-t.html

Maverick is becoming an F-35 test pilot.

It's true.

Tom Burbage, the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme manager, showed up at a National Aeronautics Association luncheon today and dropped a bombshell of a Hollywood scoop. Sure, there was talk about schedules and budgets, partners and politics, software blocks and carrier hooks. But we'll get to that later.

The big news from Burbage's speech involves Top Gun 2, the long-not-quite-awaited-but-certainly-delayed sequel of the 1986 fighter jock classic.

Tom Cruise, of course, confirmed back in December that the sequel is coming, but nobody -- not even IMDB (we checked) -- knows the full story.

But Burbage does. Lockheed's Fort Worth, Texas, factory and flight test center will host production crew in the "next month or so" to start filming, Burbage told the NAA luncheon crowd.

Burbage also confirmed that Cruise will not just make a cameo; he will be the star, and he is playing the role of a Lockheed F-35 test pilot!

Potential plot twists fill our heads.

There will be no need to resurrect Goose, as the F-35 is a single-seater. With the Libyan air force in smouldering ruins, there will also be no need to stage another improbable yet inspiring combat scenario. Indeed, as a test pilot, it's not clear how the movie's writers can weave Maverick into a combat situation.

Maybe we've been covering the industry too long, but our perfect plot for Top Gun 2 has no combat sequences at all. Instead, it goes like this:

Maverick is a test pilot struggling to keep the flight test programme on schedule, even though his better judgment is sometimes compromised by a lifelong, paralyzing fear of vertical landings. Maverick almost throws in the towel after his favourite knee board/test card holder is destroyed in an unfortunate lift fan malfunction. Meanwhile, the programme's enemies, led by the snearing Bill "Iceman" Sweetman and Karlo "Slider" Kopp, take advantage of Maverick's absence to nearly bury the programme in a wave of seemingly overwhelming blog attacks. That's when Maverick's love interest -- a Texas congresswoman strategically placed on the AirLand subcommittee -- intervenes. She gives Maverick her father's last knee board (er, her father was also a test pilot ... just go with it) and literally pushes him back into the cockpit. Maverick straps on the knee board, takes the Block 3 software build out for a spin, hits every test point and -- for the finale -- lands vertically right on top of Aviation Week's building in downtown Washington DC. And that's when Kenny Loggins starts singing.

[J.O.]

They had me until Kenny Loggins. Wouldn't it need to be Gaga or the Beeb?

[Maverick]

Aw shucks...

[Moon The Loon]

I never before thought of Kenney Loggins as a fat lady...

One can only hope!

[Maverick]

The federal government didn't follow normal procurement procedures to buy the F-35 fighter jets and the plane fails to meet at least one critical feature the government stipulated must be met, documents viewed by CBC News suggest.


CBC Power & Politics host Evan Solomon reported Monday that the exclusive new evidence reveals for the first time the Canadian military's requirements for the aircraft that are to replace the aging fleet of CF-18s.


Solomon said the statement of operational requirements, a document that has never been made public, outlines what the plane must be able to do in order to be purchased.


It describes specific mandatory characteristics without which the overall operational capability would be "unacceptably diminished."


One of the 28 mandatory requirements listed is for the plane's sensor requirements. The document says the plane must be capable of providing the pilot with 360-degree, out-of-cockpit visual situational awareness in a no-light environment.


"According to the U.S. Department of Defence there are so many problems with this feature that they're actually designing a backup. In other words, the plane can't do it," Solomon reported.


if(HPAds.ad_check_page_config('mid_article')) { var adId = 'null'; HPAds.adSonar("1519484", "2293776", "300", "250"); var debugadcode = ''; document.write(debugadcode); } adsonar_placementId=1519484;adsonar_pid=2293776;adsonar_ps=-1;adsonar_zw=300;adsonar_zh=250;adsonar_jv="ads.tw.adsonar.com";
Questions are also being raised about the brief amount of time between when the statement of operational requirements was written and when Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced the purchase.


The document, referred to as "Version 1.0" of the statement of operational requirements for the "next generation fighter capability" was issued on June 1, 2010.


It would normally take one to two years after a statement of operational requirements is issued to hold a competition to find a product and sign a contract with a supplier.


But MacKay appeared on Power & Politics less than two months later, on July 16, 2010, to announce that the government was moving forward with the F-35 purchase.


The government plans to buy 65 planes from Lockheed Martin as part of a joint purchasing program with other countries.


Alan Williams, a former assistant deputy minister at the Department of National Defence and the official who signed the memorandum of understanding in 2002 that brought Canada into the Joint Strike Fighter program, said normal procedures weren't followed.


"Not only is it not normal, but it's a complete hijacking and rigging of the process," he said in an interview on Monday's Power & Politics.


"In 2006, the military and civilians recommended the F-35 to the minister and four years later, they developed their requirements, obviously rigged or wired to ensure that the only jet to meet the requirements would be the one that they recommended four years earlier," Williams said.


But Christopher Alexander, MacKay's parliamentary secretary, told Solomon that the F-35 does meet the requirements, and "that's why it's been selected."


He said it's a developmental project and that "it's not unusual for items that are being procured for the Canadian Forces not to meet every one of the developmental requirements, it's a question of relative choices."


"You take the one that meets most of them," Alexander said.


The F-35 procurement, one of the costliest military purchases in Canadian history, is the source of ongoing controversy and is the subject of an auditor general's report that is being released next week. The government estimates the entire purchase and associated costs will be between $14 billion and $16 billion.




Also on HuffPost:
bSocialSlideshow = false; if (bSocialSlideshow) { jQuery('.wide_format').css({width:943}); }

[Fido]

Quote

One of the 28 mandatory requirements listed is for the plane's sensor requirements. The document says the plane must be capable of providing the pilot with 360-degree, out-of-cockpit visual situational awareness in a no-light environment.

So what jet-fighter can do this.
I would have thought maybe that tidbit would be worth reporting.

[Kip Powick]

Fido, on 28 March 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

So what jet-fighter can do this.
...............................................................

None...and that is the problem. "They" had intended to research, develop and put a system in the aircraft...thus Canada signed on prior to the company saying it looks like it will be a "no-go".

The F35 is the biggest boondoggle ever organized by DND and the government. CBC was reporting that the Govt may be having second thoughts about the whole purchase now...I hope it is scrapped.

[deicer]

But isn't Lord God Harper all behind this to support his Yankee buddies?

Gee, what a way to save Canadians money, so you know it will never happen.

Super Hornets would be the way to go, but who am I to say?