The F-35

[Fido]

Typical Lieberal move.

Start over on a project that has been beaten to death already.

[Maverick]

What Went Wrong with the F-35, Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter?

The F-35 was billed as a fighter jet that could do almost everything the U.S. military desired but has turned out to be one of the greatest boondoggles in recent military purchasing history

• By Michael P. Hughes, The Conversation US on June 14, 2017

 

 

Lockheed Martin F-35A. Credit: Erik Simonsen Getty Images

The following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.

The F-35 was billed as a fighter jet that could do almost everything the U.S. military desired, serving the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy – and even Britain’s Royal Air Force and Royal Navy – all in one aircraft design. It’s supposed to replace and improve upon several current – and aging – aircraft types with widely different missions. It’s marketed as a cost-effective, powerful multi-role fighter airplane significantly better than anything potential adversaries could build in the next two decades. But it’s turned out to be none of those things.

Officially begun in 2001, with roots extending back to the late 1980s, the F-35 program is nearly a decade behind schedule, and has failed to meet many of its original design requirements. It’s also become the most expensive defense program in world history, at around US$1.5 trillion before the fighter is phased out in 2070.

The unit cost per airplane, above $100 million, is roughly twice what was promised early on. Even after President Trump lambasted the cost of the program in February, the price per plane dropped just $7 million – less than 7 percent.

And yet, the U.S. is still throwing huge sums of money at the project. Essentially, the Pentagon has declared the F-35 “too big to fail.” As a retired member of the U.S. Air Force and current university professor of finance who has been involved in and studied military aviation and acquisitions, I find the F-35 to be one of the greatest boondoggles in recent military purchasing history.

Forget what’s already spent

The Pentagon is trying to argue that just because taxpayers have flushed more than $100 billion down the proverbial toilet so far, we must continue to throw billions more down that same toilet. That violates the most elementary financial principles of capital budgeting, which is the method companies and governments use to decide on investments. So-called sunk costs, the money already paid on a project, should never be a factor in investment decisions. Rather, spending should be based on how it will add value in the future.

Keeping the F-35 program alive is not only a gross waste in itself: Its funding could be spent on defense programs that are really useful and needed for national defense, such as anti-drone systems to defend U.S. troops.

Part of the enormous cost has come as a result of an effort to share aircraft design and replacement parts across different branches of the military. In 2013, a study by the RAND Corporation found that it would have been cheaper if the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy had simply designed and developed separate and more specialized aircraft to meet their specific operational requirements.

Not living up to top billing

The company building the F-35 has made grand claims. Lockheed Martin said the plane would be far better than current aircraft – “four times more effective” in air-to-air combat, “eight times more effective” in air-to-ground combat and “three times more effective” in recognizing and suppressing an enemy’s air defenses. It would, in fact, be “second only to the F-22 in air superiority.” In addition, the F-35 was to have better range and require less logistics support than current military aircraft. The Pentagon is still calling the F-35 “the most affordable, lethal, supportable, and survivable aircraft ever to be used.”

But that’s not how the plane has turned out. In January 2015, mock combat testing pitted the F-35 against an F-16, one of the fighters it is slated to replace. The F-35A was flown “clean” with empty weapon bays and without any drag-inducing and heavy externally mounted weapons or fuel tanks. The F-16D, a heavier and somewhat less capable training version of the mainstay F-16C, was further encumbered with two 370-gallon external wing-mounted fuel tanks.

In spite of its significant advantages, the F-35A’s test pilot noted that the F-35A was less maneuverable and markedly inferior to the F-16D in a visual-range dogfight.

Stealth over power

One key reason the F-35 doesn’t possess the world-beating air-to-air prowess promised, and is likely not even adequate when compared with its current potential adversaries, is that it was designed first and foremost to be a stealthy airplane. This requirement has taken precedence over maneuverability, and likely above its overall air-to-air lethality. The Pentagon and especially the Air Force seem to be relying almost exclusively on the F-35’s stealth capabilities to succeed at its missions.

Like the F-117 and F-22, the F-35’s stealth capability greatly reduces, but does not eliminate, its radar cross-section, the signal that radar receivers see bouncing back off an airplane. The plane looks smaller on radar – perhaps like a bird rather than a plane – but is not invisible. The F-35 is designed to be stealthy primarily in the X-band, the radar frequency range most commonly used for targeting in air-to-air combat.

In other radar frequencies, the F-35 is not so stealthy, making it vulnerable to being tracked and shot down using current – and even obsolete – weapons. As far back as 1999 the same type of stealth technology was not able to prevent a U.S. Air Force F-117 flying over Kosovo from being located, tracked and shot down using an out-of-date Soviet radar and surface-to-air missile system. In the nearly two decades since, that incident has been studied in depth not only by the U.S., but also by potential adversaries seeking weaknesses in passive radar stealth aircraft.

Of course, radar is not the only way to locate and target an aircraft. One can also use an aircraft’s infrared emissions, which are created by friction-generated heat as it flies through the air, along with its hot engines. Several nations, particularly the Russians, have excellent passive infrared search and tracking systems, that can locate and target enemy aircraft with great precision – sometimes using lasers to measure exact distances, but without needing radar.

It’s also very common in air-to-air battles for opposing planes to come close enough that their pilots can see each other. The F-35 is as visible as any other aircraft its size.

Analysts weigh in

Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “first look, first shot, first kill.” Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “a marketing and publicity gimmick” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.”

Other critics have been even harsher. Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “fighter mafia” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “inherently a terrible airplane” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21, a 1950s Soviet fighter design. Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. … It’s that bad.”

How did we get here?

How did the F-35 go from its conception as the most technologically advanced, do-it-all military aircraft in the world to a virtual turkey? Over the decades-long effort to meet a real military need for better aircraft, the F-35 program is the result of the merging or combination of several other separate and diverse projects into a set of requirements for an airplane that is trying to be everything to everybody.

In combat the difference between winning and losing is often not very great. With second place all too often meaning death, the Pentagon seeks to provide warriors with the best possible equipment. The best tools are those that are tailor-made to address specific missions and types of combat. Seeking to accomplish more tasks with less money, defense planners looked for ways to economize.

For a fighter airplane, funding decisions become a balancing act of procuring not just the best aircraft possible, but enough of them to make an effective force. This has lead to the creation of so-called “multi-role” fighter aircraft, capable both in air-to-air combat and against ground targets. Where trade-offs have to happen, designers of most multi-role fighters emphasize aerial combat strength, reducing air-to-ground capabilities. With the F-35, it appears designers created an airplane that doesn’t do either mission exceptionally well. They have made the plane an inelegant jack-of-all-trades, but master of none – at great expense, both in the past and, apparently, well into the future.

I believe the F-35 program should be immediately cancelled; the technologies and systems developed for it should be used in more up-to-date and cost-effective aircraft designs. Specifically, the F-35 should be replaced with a series of new designs targeted toward the specific mission requirements of the individual branches of the armed forces, in lieu of a single aircraft design trying to be everything to everyone.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-went-wrong-with-the-f-35-lockheed-martins-joint-strike-fighter/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_TECH_NEWS

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

And our government fumbles on..... following is the latest on where we are(not) going to obtain replacement aircraft for the RCAF.  

Liberals limiting options for stopgap fighter jet deal

Minister hopes trade dispute resolved quickly so 'we can get back to business' on Super Hornet purchase

By Murray Brewster, CBC NewsPosted: Jun 22, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jun 22, 2017 5:22 AM ET

Canada opened negotiations for the sole-source purchase of 18 Super Hornet jet fighters earlier this year, but the program is on hold because of a trade dispute with Boeing. (Murray Brewster/CBC)

 

Murray Brewster
Defence and security

Murray Brewster is senior defence writer for CBC News, based in Ottawa. He has covered the Canadian military and foreign policy from Parliament Hill for over a decade. Among other assignments, he spent a total of 15 months on the ground covering the Afghan war for The Canadian Press. Prior to that, he covered defence issues and politics for CP in Nova Scotia for 11 years and was bureau chief for Standard Broadcast News in Ottawa.

• Government study warns flying CF-18s late into 2020s a 'high risk'

Talks with the Pentagon about filling the Canadian air force's short-term need for jet fighters remain on track, said Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan.

Those negotiations for a so-called "interim capability" continue despite the Liberal government making a very public display at the Paris Air Show this week of snubbing Boeing executives.

The U.S. aerospace giant's commercial trade complaint against Montreal-based Bombardier has thrown the military contract into limbo.

Boeing wants trade regulators in Washington to investigate subsidies for Bombardier's CSeries aircraft, claiming they allow the Canadian company to export planes at well below cost.

The Liberals had intended to purchase 18 Super Hornet fighters — at a potential total program cost of between $5 billion and $7 billion — from Boeing. The deal was supposed to be a stopgap until the government can finalize the purchase of 88 permanent replacements for the aging CF-18 fleet.

After Boeing filed the trade complaint earlier this year, the government broke off contact with the U.S. company and said it was reviewing the "interim" fighter deal. It heightened the rhetoric last month, saying the aircraft maker was no longer the "trusted partner" it had been.

Sajjan said that, regardless of the trade dispute, the urgent requirement for fighters has not gone away and must be filled somehow.

"We're still continuing our discussions with the U.S. government, making sure that we fill this capability gap," Sajjan said.

Other options?

If Boeing has been frozen out, what is the Liberal government talking about with the Pentagon?

Sajjan said there are "other options," but refused to explain what they might be.

There are limited choices for a government-to-government purchase with the U.S. if the Super Hornet has been excluded.

During a recent trip to Singapore, Sajjan met with the CEO of Lockheed Martin, which is eager to sell Canada its advanced, but often maligned, F-35 — a plane the Liberals promised not to buy during the last election.

A defence industry source with knowledge of the file said Lockheed Martin has sent a letter to the Liberal government, expressing interest in providing its jets as the "interim solution."

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan unveiled the government's long-awaited vision for the Canadian Armed Forces last week. The new policy calls for the purchase of 88 new jet fighters but also says the government will continue to explore a stopgap purchase until the full fleet arrives. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Sajjan dismissed the notion of making the stealth fighter the "interim" solution and seemed to place his faith in the trade dispute being settled.

"No, right now for us we need to fill this interim capability gap and keep on with these discussions with the U.S. government on this," he told CBC News. "We are going to be looking at other options as well. We are looking for this to be resolved by the U.S. Department of Commerce quickly, so we can get back to business."

During an appearance before the Commons defence committee late Tuesday, the country's top military commander also dangled that possibility.

"What I would tell you is that, as the minister has said, the option for the Super Hornet is still open," said Gen. Jonathan Vance.

Referring to Boeing, he said: "They're a bad partner now. Maybe they [could] become a good partner again."

New versus used

But if the dispute drags on, it is unclear what the Liberal government can do if both the Super Hornet and the F-35 are ruled out as the gap-filler.

Defence experts have suggested there is a remote possibility the U.S. could sell Canada refurbished F-18s, similar to the current CF-18s.

The Pentagon recently had modernized F-16s on the market, which the Polish air force considered but eventually declined. That would be an even more unlikely fit, since Canada has never flown the single-seat fighters, which were the backbone of the U.S. air force for decades.

The "interim" fleet is meant to fill the gap until the Liberal government decides on a permanent replacement for the CF-18s.

Conservative MP James Bezan, his party's defence critic, wants the government to proceed to an open competition to buy fighter jets. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Conservative defence critic James Bezan said he doesn't understand why the Liberals are twisting themselves into knots for a temporary solution when they can simply proceed to the open competition they promised for the full fleet.

Sajjan said that is still in the cards, but federal procurement officials have said a competition could take up to five years to run.

"If you look at what other states, other countries are doing in their recent procurement to replace their tactical fighters, none of them are taking five years to do this competition," Bezan said.

"If you look right now, Denmark is doing theirs in two years; Belgium means to complete theirs right now in 18 months; and just earlier this week, Finland started their F-18 replacement program, and they plan to have their first deliveries in 2021 and the entire fleet replaced by 2025, which coincidentally is the same time that our life extension on our CF-18s run out."

 

[Guest]

Truly bizarre, so blow wind up it's ass and you can wipe it out. All aircraft lined up pointing north with strong winds out of the south, command to scramble, long delay to turn aircraft into the wind so they can start..... 

F-35 Fire Caused By Tailwind

By Geoff Rapoport | July 15, 2017

 

 

The Pratt & Whitney F135 engine of a U.S. Air Force F-35A caught on fire during start, severely damaging the aircraft, due to a tailwind, says the Air Force Incident Investigation Board’s (AIB) report released this week. The pilot of the aircraft received some burns during egress and damage to the aircraft is expected to exceed $17 million. According to the report, “the mishap was caused by a tailwind blowing hot air from either the mishap aircraft’s Integrated Power Pack (IPP) exhaust or the mishap aircraft’s engine exhaust into the IPP inlet. The hot air entering the IPP inlet started a sequence of events ultimately ending in an uncontained engine fire.”

The IPP on the F-35 functions as a combined auxiliary and emergency power unit. Power from the IPP is used to start the main engine. When hot exhaust gases entered the IPP’s inlet, a automatic shutdown of the IPP was triggered. Shutdown of the IPP cut power to the F135’s engine starter, just prior to the engine reaching a self-sustaining speed. The AIB concluded that “since engine combustion had already began, an increasing amount of fuel was delivered to the engine in an effort to increase combustion and overcome the slowing acceleration.” However, since the engine was turning below a self-sustaining speed, the additional fuel, rather than increasing engine speed, resulted in a fire that spread beyond the combustion section of the turbine. The tailwind, in addition to causing in the original IPP fault, then spread the flames across the aircraft.

Based on the local weather at the time of the incident, the tailwind component where the mishap aircraft was parked is estimated to have been 30 knots. There was a note in the pilot checklist stating that “issues could occur” starting with a tailwind, but no maximum tailwind limit during start had been established.

[conehead]

Ouch. Glad the pilot got out, although with "some" burns.

[Guest]

Interesting Podcast: http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-f-35-crossfire-part-1?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20170721_AW-05_477&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000003028964&utm_campaign=10994&utm_medium=email&elq2=56916a5bdaac4035a30188bfb2a4af3f

Podcast: F-35 in the Crossfire, Part 1

 

Jul 20, 2017Lara Seligman  | Aviation Week & Space Technology

 

Pentagon Editor Lara Seligman leads a debate about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with two seasoned experts – retired Marine Lt. Col. David Berke, a former F-35B and F-22 pilot and Pierre Sprey, who helped conceptualize the design of the F-16 and A-10 fighters. In this episode, they discuss whether the F-35 can fight in combat as advertised.

Listen to Part II: F-35 in the Crossfire

[boestar]

One should never start a turbine engine with a tail wind.  At least thats the way I was taught.  increases the likelyhood of a compressor stall.

 

[Guest]

More on the F-35

Opposing Views: Debating The F-35’s Strengths And Weaknesses

Aug 8, 2017Aviation Week & Space Technology

• • EMAIL
• INSHARE

COMMENTS 38

 

F-35, in Black and White

RELATED MEDIA

Podcast: F-35 in the Crossfire, Part 1

 

It is hard to find a more divisive topic in the aerospace world than the Lockheed Martin F-35. Aviation Week Pentagon Editor Lara Seligman sat down with two industry veterans who hold opposite views on the fighter: Marine Corps Lt. Col. (ret.) Dave Berke, a former Top Gun instructor, has flown the F-35, F-22, F-16 and F-18; and Pierre Sprey, of “Fighter Mafia” fame, helped conceptualize designs for the A-10 and F-16. Excerpts follow. Listen to their debate in full at AviationWeek.com/check6

Seligman: Lockheed Martin and U.S. Air Force pilots contend that the maneuvers we saw at the Paris Air Show laid to rest the rumors that the F-35 can’t dogfight. Pierre, do you think that’s true?

Sprey: That was nonsense, just marketing hype. The demo was as phony as all the other [air show] demos are. They had a super-light F-35, and the performance wasn’t all that impressive. I talked to a guy who prepped an A-10 for the air show, and they did the same thing—they [made] it so light it actually looked super maneuverable, which it’s not, except at low speed. The F-35’s turn rate was not impressive. It was [much] slower than a 30-year-old F-16. An engineer friend of mine clocked it at 17 deg. per second. Any old F-16 can do 22 [deg. per second].

KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

Can the F-35 dogfight?

How does the F-35’s ability to communicate in flight change warfare

What are the difficulties of producing F-35—a program that remains in development?

What are the impacts of the F-35’s $406 billion price tag?

Berke: I would not disagree. Air show demos are exactly that, a demonstration. I think part of the reason this demo got so much publicity is there has been a long-held misunderstanding of what the airplane can do in the visual arena. People have made claims that it’s incapable of dogfighting and things like that. It is a highly capable, highly maneuverable airplane, like everybody who has ever flown it understands.

 

Pierre Sprey helped to conceive the design of the F-16 and A-10 fighters. Credit: James Stevenson

 

Sprey: The airplane that flew at Paris was totally incapable of combat. And that’s not just me talking; that’s the operational testers of the Air Force, Navy and the Marines. In their assessment, the configuration that was flying in Paris, to go to war, would need an escort to protect it against enemy fighters. It would need extra help to find targets, particularly air-to-ground threats.

How does the F-35’s networking capability change the game for warfare?

Berke: I can’t think of any airplane that we’re flying today that would want to get into a dogfight. I would avoid that in any platform. F-22 pilots don’t fly around looking for dogfights. Part of the reason why the F-35 and the F-22 have such a massive advantage over legacy platforms is their ability to make really intelligent decisions. You’re getting information presented to you on a much larger scale, and it’s fused more intelligently. 

All my career, I’ve flown fighters, and flown them in combat, and I was a forward air controller. It’s all about making an intelligent decision as soon as you can. It is really difficult for me to overstate what a massive advantage you have in decision-making in the F-35. I don’t know a single pilot—and I know a lot of F-35 pilots—that would even consider taking a legacy platform into combat. The F-35 advantage over these platforms is infinitely greater.

When he was an active duty Marine, Lt. Col. (ret.) David Berke flew the F-35B, F-22, F-18 and F-16. Credit: U.S. Marine Corps

 

Sprey: The original marketing hype, both out of the services and Lockheed Martin, was always “It’s a great dogfighter; it’s a great close-support platform.” In truth it can’t do any of those missions very well because, like all multimission airplanes it’s highly flawed, and the technical execution of this airplane is unusually bad by historical standards. I agree with [Lt.] Col. Berke that no airplane looks for a dogfight. On the other hand, in serious wars sometimes you can’t avoid it. The F-35 is a horrible target if it has to get into a dogfight. It’s got an enormously high wing load. It’s almost as unmaneuverable as the infamous F-104. 

All that networking stuff, if it worked, would make the pilot smarter and more situationally aware. But right now it is an impediment, and it might be a permanent impediment given the cyber [threat], which is horrible for this airplane. All that reliance on networking is giving inferior, less well-funded, less equipped enemies a tremendous opportunity, because the airplane is so vulnerable to all kinds of cybermeddling. The people we might face—Chinese, Russians, Yugoslavs, whomever—are all pretty clever with computers. We’ve given them a tremendous opportunity to wreck our airpower for almost no money.

Berke: I would disagree with virtually all of that. The idea that there are things wrong with the airplane is 100% true, but the idea [that] does not work is 100% not true. To fuse broadband multispectral information, [radio frequency], electro-optical infrared, laser infrared and laser energies among several cockpits, ground users and sea-based platforms is really complicated stuff. And so there are things wrong with the airplane. I don’t know a single [F-35] pilot that would deny that. But the idea that you would read some sort of report on the airplane’s performance and then draw the conclusion that it is broken forever is a leap. We inside the community haven’t done a good job of explaining how amazing the airplane is. 

You could bring 100 people into this room and ask what warfare is going to look like in 30 years, and you’re going to get 100 different answers. If I hear somebody talking about dogfighting, that person is not thinking about the future. And if I hear somebody say “wing loading,” that’s a red flag that you are thinking about the wrong things. Among every Marine, Air Force and Navy [F-35] pilot I know who came from a legacy aircraft—Hornets, F-15s, F-16s—there is no debate about what is the most capable aircraft they’ve ever flown and what they would take into combat tomorrow.

What are the difficulties posed by what is known as concurrency—the process of producing F-35s and testing them before system development is complete?

Sprey: The testing that has taken place so far is very benign. It’s engineering testing—there has not been any rough testing yet—and the airplane has performed very badly on a whole score of issues. They’re not flying against any stressful scenarios for the simple reason that the Joint Program Office is sabotaging the operational tests, and this is very deliberate. Because if you fail, the [program] might be canceled. 

I have mixed feelings about pilots being so enthusiastic about their airplanes. It is very common now, because the services are so wound up with procurement, and people critical of their equipment tend to have shorter careers. I think you want to be skeptical about everything you work with. You don’t want to be a true believer going into combat and wind up hanging from a parachute, or dead.

 Berke: The idea that any professional uniformed officer, let alone a fighter pilot, would somehow find themselves unprepared for the horrors of combat because they were illusively in love with their equipment is preposterous. I’ve [been] a Top Gun instructor, and we would spend 8 hr. debriefing a flight. All you do is talk about things you did wrong, your strengths, your weaknesses, how to mitigate one and play to the others. If you are going to ask a fighter pilot who has done operational testing what their opinion is, the idea that even one shred of what they say is a party-line answer would be offensive. I’ve spent 23 years as a U.S. Marine, and never once did I get the implication that I shouldn’t be completely honest with my evaluation.

The F-35 has good and bad things about it. In the operational test world, we are focused on making the airplanes better. We spend our time on a laundry list of things that need to be improved. When every single pilot that has taken the airplanes into highly complex [exercises] at Red Flag and at places like Nellis [AFB, Nevada,] comes back with overwhelming dominance, it’s difficult not to be really supportive. So if you hear pilots saying the F-35 is awesome, it’s not a sales pitch. It’s steeped in a long history of flying several different airplanes in different environments.

F-35 procurement costs have come down in the last couple of years, but this year they ticked up slightly to $406 billion from about $380 billion.

Sprey: Cost is part of what force you can bring to bear. To create airpower, you have to be able to put a bunch of airplanes in the sky over the enemy. You can’t do it with a tiny handful, even if they are unbelievably good. You send six airplanes to China, they could care less about what they are. F-22 deployments are now six airplanes, and that’s because of the cost. Force is a function of cost and how reliable the airplane is, how often it flies per day. 

If you bought F-16s at the same budget, $400 billion, instead of F-35s, you’d be able to buy five times more airplanes. It is five times as expensive and flies at best half as often. My feeling is it will fly less often than an F-22—it is a good deal more complicated than an F-22, and it’s showing that right now. If that’s the case, it may fly once every five days, in which case if will fly one-fifth as often as the F-16.

Berke: I don’t care how cheap the airplane is; if you can’t fly it in combat, it is useless. We are inventing technology that didn’t exist before, and it’s all driven toward the idea of being relevant in a highly complex, 3D battlespace that we have a hard time predicting even for the next 15 years. I don’t want to buy a car that’s cheaper and then have that car not be drivable in three years. The fact is the Chinese [are developing] fifth-generation airplanes. They are building and buying [them] right now, and that’s going to make air warfare complicated. [The F-35 is] too expensive? That’s easy to say. Compared to what? Losing a war in 15 years? Or compared to an F-16 in 1977? Make sure you get that frame of reference right, because it is really important.

[Guest]

Reality strikes.  The Value of Our order from Boeing for the F35s, which we may cancel if they don't get off of their case against Bombardier is exactly squat in the large picture.

Boeing refusing to blink in dispute with Bombardier despite Liberal threats

Liberal government threat to scrap plan to buy firm's fighter jets won't weaken resolve, Boeing executive says

By Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian PressPosted: Sep 04, 2017 8:00 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 04, 2017 8:00 PM ET

U.S. aerospace giant Boeing is not backing down in its trade complaint over Montreal-based Bombardier's C-series passenger jets, which Boeing says are unfairly subsidized. (Ints Kalnins/Reuters)

 

• Boeing expected to deliver Super Hornet benefits plan despite disagreement
• U.S. trade commission will proceed with Bombardier investigation
• Liberals halt contact with Boeing on Super Hornets as trade dispute escalates
• Boeing says trade complaint against Bombardier designed to prevent larger CSeries
• In Bombardier fight, Boeing sees ghost of Airbus ascent

Boeing Co. has no plans to back down in its trade dispute with Canadian rival Bombardier — a high-stakes, cross-border conflict that the U.S. transportation giant says could have long-term ramifications for the future of the entire aerospace sector.

The potential consequences of the Boeing-Bombardier standoff extend beyond any single deal — especially for Boeing itself, said Marc Allen, president of Boeing's international division.

"In Canada, we face a situation with a competitor, an emerging competitor, that has, yes, long received government support — but that just went beyond the pale in 2016," Allen said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"That aggressive move had to be addressed if we really believe in establishing a global architecture that will create the greatest prosperity for our industry and for us as a company in the long term."

Boeing triggered the dispute earlier this year when it complained that Montreal-based Bombardier was selling its CSeries passengers jets to U.S.-based Delta Air Lines at an unfairly low price, thanks to loans and grants from both the province of Quebec and the federal government.

 

When the U.S. Commerce Department and its associated International Trade Commission agreed in May to investigate the complaint, the Trudeau government fired a warning shot, threatening to scrap its multibillion-dollar "interim" plan to buy 18 of Boeing's "interim" Super Hornet fighter jets.

• U.S. trade commission will proceed with Bombardier investigation

• More doubt cast over Super Hornet sale as Liberals break contact with Boeing

 

Boeing initially hoped to resolve the dispute through diplomacy, Allen said, and convinced the U.S. government last year to send an official note to Canada, known as a demarche.

"There was just no response," Allen said. "It was clear that no progress was going to be made, and that if any progress was going to be had, it would have to be through some form of enforcement action."

Boeing knew the dispute would spark a strong reaction from Ottawa, Allen continued, but company executives decided that it needed to take action in order to protect the firm's broader interests.

Boeing's trade complaint followed a deal struck between Alain Bellemare, left, president and CEO of Bombardier, and Ed Bastian, right, CEO of Delta Air Lines, for 75 CS100 aircraft last year. (Ryan Remiorz/Canadian Press)

And while the American aerospace titan — which also happens to employs thousands of people across Canada — would still prefer finding a resolution through more amicable means, Allen said it is singularly focused on achieving its objectives.

"There's certainly no desire to do something that any one of our customers or any one of our sovereign-state partners would take offence at," he said. "But the effort to enforce our interests in an even playing field in aerospace is a very large interest."

Dispute could drag on

Some have questioned why Boeing is being so aggressive; the CSeries planes manufacturered by Bombardier do not directly compete with the U.S. company's existing passenger jets.

But Allen said the situation has echoes of the rapid ascent of Airbus, the European consortium that was formed in the 1970s and has since grown to become the second-largest aerospace company in the world, and Boeing's most formidable rival.

• In Bombardier fight, Boeing sees ghost of Airbus ascent

• Boeing says trade complaint against Bombardier designed to prevent larger CSeries

"We watched another competitor come up and enter the market in a very similar fashion," he said. "And in retrospect, I think that you find across the board in U.S. aerospace, people who would have said they wish they had confronted the uneven playing field."

Boeing and Airbus have been locked in their own trade dispute at the World Trade Organization for more than a decade.

Many defence officials and industry representatives have circled Sept. 25 on their calendars; that's the date the U.S. Commerce Department is scheduled to release the preliminary findings of its investigation into Bombardier.

But Allen said he expects the dispute to drag into next year, as U.S. officials finalize their findings and decide whether to level fines or tariffs against the Canadian manufacturer.

That could force the federal Liberal government into making a decision about whether to move ahead with the Super Hornet purchase, or abandon it before a final decision is reached.

[Super 80]

Whether Boeing cares about alienating Ottawa and losing the F-18 and presumptive P-8 and 767 tanker orders is one thing, but to have now completely alienated two Delta CEOs back to back is something else entirely.

[Maverick]

This turd continues to stink.

Broken F-35 Parts Take Six Months To Fix, GAO Finds

Oct 30, 2017 Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

• •  

Comments 4

An F-35 Lightning II from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, takes off from the Gowen Field runway Oct. 16, 2017, in Boise, Idaho.

USAF

If a part on one of the U.S. military’s growing fleet of 250 F-35s fails, it takes about six months for the depots to repair it—twice the program’s objective, a key government watchdog has found.  

The Pentagon does not have enough capacity to repair F-35 parts in a timely manner because the establishment of repair capabilities at the military depots is six years behind schedule, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) writes in a recent report on the controversial fighter. These capabilities were planned to be completed by 2016, but some have now been delayed until 2022, according to the watchdog.

Neither the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) nor the military services would take responsibility for the delay, GAO says. Program officials attributed it to the services not providing enough funding for depot requirements, but service officials pointed fingers at the JPO, saying the program office did not clearly identify some depot requirements soon enough for the services to provide adequate funding.

In addition, GAO found that a shortage of spare parts in the F-35 supply chain is leading to low readiness levels. From January through August 7, 2017, prime contractor Lockheed Martin reported that F-35s were unable to fly because they were awaiting parts on average about 22% of the time—more than double the Pentagon’s objective of 10%, according to the report.

The program office and Lockheed have identified steps needed to increase the availability of spare parts, GAO writes. Still, parts shortages are expected to continue for several years to come and may worsen if the JPO and Lockheed don’t follow through.

GAO reported the striking repair limitations and parts shortages as part of a wide-ranging report on F-35 sustainment challenges, even as the Pentagon plans to triple the size of the fleet by the end of 2021.

“DOD is taking steps to address some challenges, but without more comprehensive plans and aligned funding, DOD risks being unable to fully leverage the F-35’s capabilities and sustain a rapidly expanding fleet,” GAO writes.

The report also notes that initial Marine Corps F-35 deployments on ships in 2018, and potentially initial Navy deployments, will not include the intermediate-level maintenance capabilities that will allow repairs to be done at sea. This likely will lead to degraded readiness, GAO concludes.

Meanwhile, GAO also reports delays in planned updates to the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), the logistics backbone of the fleet that is central to supporting operations and maintenance.

These sustainment challenges are leading to lower-than-expected aircraft availability and full-mission-capable rates across the fleet, GAO notes.

The F-35 already is the Pentagon’s most costly weapon system, with sustainment costs alone estimated at $1.12 trillion over 60 years, according to GAO.

“Without revising sustainment plans to include the key requirements and decision points needed to fully implement the F-35 sustainment strategy, and without aligned funding plans to meet those requirements, DOD is at risk of being unable to leverage the capabilities of the aircraft it has recently purchased,” GAO says.

JPO spokesman Joe DellaVedova acknowledged that the report is “factually accurate,” but said due to its origination date it does not account for the work the F-35 sustainment team has done over the past few months to accelerate depot capability and capacity, implement solutions to increase spare parts and reduce overall sustainment costs.

GAO conducted the performance audit from October 2016 to October 2017, according to the report.
The JPO pointed to several initiatives it has undertaken to improve F-35 logistics and sustainment, including a disciplined reliability and maintainability program, improved maintenance procedures and manuals, continued improvement in ALIS, better forecasting of spares requirements, improved repair turnaround times from suppliers and incorporation of aircraft design improvements. These efforts are having a positive effect, but “at a slower rate than desired,” according to the JPO.

Additional actions include:

• In fiscal 2017, the JPO moved forward with accelerating depot capability by executing $114 million to fast-track the standup of depots.  

• In fiscal 2017, the JPO invested $3.4 million in Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) improvement projects, with 28 projects in work to reduce the top maintenance cost drivers.  

• In fiscal 2017, the JPO spent $1.4 billion to increase spare part purchases, build up repair capacity and improve the speed of repairs.

• To increase F-35 intermediate-level maintenance capabilities for shipboard deployments, the JPO has identified select avionics and support equipment for repair and is working with the services to resource requirements.

• The JPO has developed a five-year ALIS technical roadmap to address future requirements.

• The JPO has jointly developed a Lifecycle Affordability Board with Lockheed Martin Aeronautics and Pratt & Whitney to provide a single location for experts in manufacturing, supply chain management, cost estimating, and acquisition to work jointly on driving down operation and support (O&S) costs.  

“The F-35 Joint Program Office is moving out on all fronts to accelerate depot capability and capacity; implement solutions to increase spare parts and reduce overall sustainment costs,” DellaVedova said. “We remain focused and fully committed to developing, delivering and sustaining this next-generation stealth fighter for the warfighters.”

http://aviationweek.com/defense/broken-f-35-parts-take-six-months-fix-gao-finds?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20171101_AW-05_821&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000002544843&utm_campaign=12361&utm_medium=email&elq2=0b3d623ade264d2a82c5d11d5e1dcd4a

[Fido]

7 hours ago, Maverick said:

An F-35 Lightning II from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, takes off from the Gowen Field runway Oct. 16, 2017, in Boise, Idaho.

Taking off or landing?

 

[Kip Powick]

24 minutes ago, Fido said:

Taking off or landing?

 

Semantics...Aircraft had been  in UTAH and was doing a takeoff in IDAHO when the photo was taken...

[DEFCON]

The aircraft would make a good technology research platform for the next twenty years, but I doubt it'll reach true operational status before becoming obsolete.

 

 

[Guest]

And while blowing their own horn, the Government announces :

Government of Canada Hosts Future Fighter Industry Day in Ottawa Français

---

NEWS PROVIDED BY

Public Services and Procurement Canada

13:00 ET

OTTAWA, Jan. 22, 2018 /CNW/ - Canada is building a highly capable, flexible military with the ability to operate closely with allies and partners. The competitive process to replace Canada's fighter fleet represents the most significant investment in the Royal Canadian Air Force in recent history. 

Governments, defence, and aerospace industry representatives from around the world are in Ottawa this week to find out more about the competitive procurement process launched last month and now underway to replace Canada'sfighter jet fleet.

Today's information session focused on providing participants with details about the planned procurement process and estimated schedule, high-level operational objectives of the future fighter capability, as well as the approach to sustainment and leveraging economic benefits.

In the coming weeks, Canada will establish a list of supplier teams, comprised of foreign governments and fighter aircraft manufacturers that have demonstrated their eligibility as defined in the Suppliers List invitation. All foreign government and commercial entities are welcome to participate in this process. Once the list is formalized, it will be posted to Buyandsell.gc.ca in spring 2018.

Engagement activities will be conducted over the coming months, through to spring 2019, when it is anticipated the government will begin soliciting proposals from eligible supplier teams. Through its engagement, the Government will ensure Canadian industry are well-positioned to participate in this process.

Proposals will be rigorously assessed on cost, technical requirements and economic benefits. The Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy will also be applied, requiring the winning supplier to make investments in Canada equal to the value of the contract. As it is important to do business with trusted partners, the evaluation of bids will also include an assessment of bidders' impact on Canada's economic interests. Consultations on this criteria, as well as guidelines for its application as an ongoing procurement tool, will be conducted through separate engagement activities later this year. 

Quotes

"This engagement with potential suppliers is another important milestone in the process to replace Canada's fighter jet fleet. We are committed to working with industry and government partners to ensure this procurement is done right, so that Canada's Air Force has the equipment they need as quickly as possible. The success of this process depends on the participation of many stakeholders, and we are pleased with the response we have received from potential suppliers."

The Honourable Carla Qualtrough
Minister of Public Services and Procurement

"The Government of Canada must ensure the safety and security of Canadians. The discussions we are now having with industry and foreign governments will help assure we have the equipment our women and men in uniform need to protect our sovereignty."

The Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan
Minister of National Defence

"The procurement of Canada's next fighter aircraft presents a once in a lifetime opportunity for Canada's aerospace sector. We will work with Canadian industry to develop a strategy for leveraging economic benefits that will support innovation, grow the economy, and create middle-class jobs in Canada."

The Honourable Navdeep Bains
Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development

Quick facts

• On December 12, 2017, the Government of Canada launched an open and transparent competition to permanently replace Canada's fighter fleet. Canada will purchase 88 advanced fighter aircraft, as commitment to in Strong, Secure, Engaged, Canada's defence policy.
• The government will keep foreign governments, fighter aircraft manufacturers and the Canadian aerospace and defence sectors informed, to ensure they are well-positioned to participate.
• A contract award is anticipated in the 2021/2022 timeframe and the first replacement aircraft delivered in 2025. This is consistent with international experience in terms of the time required to undertake a thorough, open competition for a procurement of this size and complexity.
• Until permanent replacement aircraft are in place and fully operational, Canada must ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces has the equipment it needs to continue to deliver its missions, and meet its international obligations. As such, the Government of Canada is pursuing the purchase of 18 supplemental jets from the Australian Government.

Associated links

Replacing and supplementing Canada's CF-18 fleet
CF-18 replacement

For further information: Ashley Michnowski, Press Secretary, Office of the Honourable Carla Qualtrough, 819-997-5421; Media Relations, Public Services and Procurement Canada, 819-420-5501, media@pwgsc-tpsgc.gc.ca

Related Links

www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
https://www.canada.ca

[Fido]

4 hours ago, Malcolm said:

 Government of Canada launched an open and transparent competition 

I really cannot believe anything this government says

[st27]

Yup ... the first steps in a 10 yr process..

“represents the most significant investment in the Royal Canadian Air Force in recent history.”

Well, since the Libs have been in power.

“so that Canada's Air Force has the equipment they need as quickly as possible.”

Maybe they should have stayed with the F35.

“benefits that will support innovation, grow the economy, and create middle-class jobs in Canada."

What liberal announcement wouldn’t be complete without that statement??   Yawn......

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, st27 said:

Yup ... the first steps in a 10 yr process..

“represents the most significant investment in the Royal Canadian Air Force in recent history.”

Well, since the Libs have been in power.

“so that Canada's Air Force has the equipment they need as quickly as possible.”

Maybe they should have stayed with the F35.

“benefits that will support innovation, grow the economy, and create middle-class jobs in Canada."

What liberal announcement wouldn’t be complete without that statement??   Yawn......

 

 

 

Or maybe taken a look at the "real" missions that the RCAF should perform for Canada.  Do we really need fighters? 

 

 

[mo32a]

19 hours ago, st27 said:

Yup ... the first steps in a 10 yr process..

“represents the most significant investment in the Royal Canadian Air Force in recent history.”

Well, since the Libs have been in power.

“so that Canada's Air Force has the equipment they need as quickly as possible.”

Maybe they should have stayed with the F35.

“benefits that will support innovation, grow the economy, and create middle-class jobs in Canada."

What liberal announcement wouldn’t be complete without that statement??   Yawn......

 

 

 

The only thing they left out was "gender neutral middle class jobs"

[Guest]

A ploy or will Boeing not bid|?

Boeing still evaluating whether to bid for Canadian fighter contract

• 23 January, 2018
• SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com
• BY: Stephen Trimble
• Washington DC

Boeing has yet to decide whether to compete for a contract worth $12-14.5 billion to replace Canada’s tactical fighter fleet. The airframer once had the deal in its pocket before Ottawa terminated plans to buy the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet after Boeing filed a trade complaint against Bombardier last May.

In a possible sign that the company could forego submitting a bid, Boeing chose to skip a one-day information session for potential bidders on 22 January that was hosted by Canadian agency managing the Future Fighter Capability acquisition programme.

Boeing confirmed the absence and says it remains convinced that the Super Hornet is the best option for the Royal Canadian Air Force, although the airframer has not decided whether to offer the aircraft yet.

“We continue to believe that the Super Hornet is the low-risk, low-cost approach that has all the advanced capabilities the Royal Canadian Air Force needs now and well into the future,” Boeing says.

“We will evaluate our participation in Canada’s Future Fighter Capability Project (FFCP) after the Government of Canada outlines the FFCP procurement approach, requirements and evaluation criteria,” Boeing adds.

US government officials attended the information session hosted by Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC), the Canadian government’s acquisition arm, Boeing says.

Boeing may face a deadline in two weeks to make a decision. Attendance at the information session was not mandatory, but PSPC has requested that all potential bidders respond by 9 February to an invitation to join a Suppliers List. Only companies that respond to the invitation will be informed and allowed to participate in all future steps of the FFCP acquisition process, the PSPC says.

The indecision by Boeing reflects a staggering turn-around in the company’s fortunes in Ottawa since last year. In his victorious 2015 election campaign, now-prime minister Justin Trudeau promised to cancel the previous government’s plans to buy the Lockheed Martin F-35A without first staging a competition. A year later, the Trudeau government announced plans to acquire 24 new F/A-18E/Fs as an interim replacement for the CF-18, until a competition selected a permanent solution after 2020.

But those plans changed last May after Boeing filed an anti-dumping and countervailing duty complaint against Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier over an April 16 sale to Delta Air Lines of 75 CS100s. The US Commerce Department agreed with Boeing’s position and set a nearly 300% tariff on CSeries imports to the USA. The final outcome of the case now depends on a vote by the US International Trade Commission on 25 January, which will decide whether the Delta order caused financial harm to Boeing and, if so, ratify the tariff.

Meanwhile, the Trudeau government scrapped the plan to buy Super Hornets last summer. The RCAF instead plans to buy retired F/A-18s from the Royal Australian Air Force as an interim CF-18 replacement.

[Fido]

2 hours ago, Malcolm said:

Boeing still evaluating whether to bid for Canadian fighter contract

They should stay out just to drive up the price Canada would have to pay.

[Maverick]

 

Airbus Delivers Latest Standard Eurofighter to Spanish Air Force

(Source: Airbus Defence and Space; issued Jan 23, 2018)

Airbus has delivered to the Spain the first two Eurofighter Typhoons built to the latest P1Eb FW configuration. Their enhanced air-to-surface capabilities will be retrofitted to all Eurofighters in service with the four partner nations. (Airbus photo)

 

MADRID --- Airbus Defence and Space has delivered to the Spanish Air Force the first two Eurofighter Typhoons to be produced in the latest configuration with enhanced air-to-surface capabilities. 

The aircraft were manufactured at the Getafe Final Assembly Line in the P1Eb FW (Phase 1 Enhanced Further Work) configuration which marks a key step in the overall Eurofighter evolution plan. 

This same configuration is being retrofitted to in-service aircraft by other Eurofighter nations. It provides increased integration of a variety of air-to-surface weapons and enhanced targeting among other improvements. 

Spanish procurement agency DGAM took delivery of the aircraft on 22 December and they were subsequently ferried to Albacete air force base to enter service. The remaining six of the 73 aircraft currently contracted by Spain will be delivered to the same P1Eb FW standard during 2018 and 2019. 

Airbus Operating Officer, Military Aircraft, Alberto Gutierrez said: “The smooth introduction of these enhanced features is a vital element of Eurofighter’s evolution. It is a big tribute to the Airbus and Spanish customer teams that they achieved this on-time through effective collaboration and clearly demonstrates the rich manufacturing capability here at Getafe.” 

DGAM Head of Aeronautical Systems Gen Léon Antonio Machés said: “The entry into service of these aircraft is the outcome of strong collaborative activity between our personnel and those of Airbus. It is an excellent illustration of the technical expertise that will support many more years of Eurofighter industrial activity in Spain.” 


Airbus is a global leader in aeronautics, space and related services. In 2016, it generated revenues of € 67 billion and employed a workforce of around 134,000. Airbus offers the most comprehensive range of passenger airliners from 100 to more than 600 seats. Airbus is also a European leader providing tanker, combat, transport and mission aircraft, and is one of the world’s leading space companies. In helicopters, Airbus provides the most efficient civil and military rotorcraft solutions worldwide. 


Eurofighter Typhoon is the most advanced swing-role combat aircraft currently available on the world market. Eight customers (Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Kuwait) have already ordered the Eurofighter Typhoon. With 623 aircraft ordered, Eurofighter Typhoon is currently the largest military procurement programme in Europe. Its high technology strengthens the position of European aerospace industry in the international market. 

The programme secures more than 100,000 jobs in 400 companies. Eurofighter Jagdflugzeug GmbH manages the programme on behalf of the Eurofighter Partner Companies, Airbus Defence and Space in Germany and Spain, BAE Systems in the UK and Leonardo in Italy, which are the most important aviation and aerospace companies in Europe. 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/190122/airbus-delivers-latest_standard-eurofighter-to-spain.html

[Guest]

Canada's CF-18s to fly until 2032 as new fighter jets expected to be slowly phased in

Companies who took part in an industry day outlining government plans were told the jets, dating from 1982, will be retired after 50 years of service

 David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen
David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen    
 

January 28, 2018
12:35 PM EST

Last Updated
January 28, 2018
1:26 PM EST
Canada will squeeze even more flying time out of its aging CF-18s, keeping the jets operating for another 15 years.

There had been plans to take the jets out of service shortly after 2025.

But representatives from companies who took part in a Jan. 22 industry day outlining the Liberal government’s program to buy new fighter planes were told the RCAF will now keep the CF-18s operating until 2032.

The jets, first received in 1982, will be retired after 50 years of service.

Some aerospace industry sources, however, question whether the 2032 retirement is set in stone since any delays in the purchase of new jets could alter that schedule.
The first replacement aircraft for the CF-18s will arrive in 2025 but the deliveries of the 88 planes would not be completed until 2030, according to the federal government documents distributed to industry representatives at the Jan. 22 meeting in Ottawa.

The CF-18s have been upgraded over the years. In 2001 a modernization project was launched to allow the planes to continue operating until 2017-2020.
 A CF-188 Hornet from the Canadian Air Task Force Lithuania perform manoeuvres over Lithuania on September 15, 2014 for the NATO Baltic Air Policing Block 36 during Operation Reassurance. Cpl Gabrielle DesRochers 

Structural improvements to maintain the fleet have also been ongoing and another upgrade program is in the works, with the aim to keep the planes flying until 2025, according to the RCAF.

That will provide the planes with various systems to allow them to operate with allied air forces as well as meet new rules to fly in domestic and international airspace. There could also be upgrades to weapons, the RCAF says.

It is unclear if yet another upgrade would be needed beyond that to keep the planes flying from 2025 to 2032.

Canada is in also in discussions with Australia to purchase 18 used F-18 aircraft to augment the existing fleet of CF-18s. While the exact cost of that deal won’t be made public until the contract is signed, the Liberal government has set aside $500 million for the project.

In November 2016, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan acknowledged that the CF-18s might have to keep flying longer than planned, suggesting they could even continue until 2030 or perhaps beyond. The briefing to industry representatives was the first official government confirmation that the RCAF would stretch out the life of the aircraft until 2032.

The Liberals have committed to buying 88 new fighter jets in a program that could cost as much as $19 billion. That price-tag does not include long-term maintenance.
 Seen from the window of a Canadian Forces CC-150 Polaris tanker, a CF-18 Hornet fighter jet refuels in the air over Vancouver during Operation Podium on Feb. 18, 2010. Master Corporal Andrew Collins, 14 Wing Imaging 

Troy Crosby, director general of defence major projects at Public Services and Procurement Canada, said in an interview with Postmedia that a request for proposals from companies for the new fighter jets is expected to be issued in spring 2019. A contract would be signed in late 2021 or early 2022.

André Fillion, chief of staff in the materiel branch at the Department of National Defence, said the Jan. 22 meeting provided a way to brief industry on how the purchase will unfold. “This was an opportunity for us to start talking to industry about the context for the fleet in terms of its operation, sustainment and acquisition,” he explained in an interview with Postmedia. Fillion said attendees were given “a bit of an appreciation of where we are headed so they can start thinking about their solution.”
See AlsoAndrew Coyne: Fighter jet mess reeks of politics, deceit and cowboy economics
Canada scraps plan to buy Boeing fighters and will go with used Australian F-18s: sources
Dennis Roberts: Buying old F-18 jets is a bad idea. It just makes our existing problem worse

Further details of the purchase will emerge over the next year.

Canada is compiling a suppliers list which will include aircraft manufacturers and the foreign governments or defence agencies associated with those planes. The deadline for submissions to that list is Feb. 9.

The Canadian government will then evaluate the responses and a formal list will be drawn up by March. Only suppliers on the list at that time will be invited to take part in the competition and to submit proposals.
 

[Guest]

Liberal plan to keep CF-18s flying until 2032 could cost an extra $1.5 billion: report

The $1.5 billion would be on top of $500 million the Liberal government has set aside to buy 18 used Australian F-18s as a stop-gap until it can acquire new jets
David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen

February 21, 2018
6:24 PM EST

 

Canadians could be paying more than $1.5 billion extra as the operating life of the military’s aging CF-18 fighter jets is extended for another 14 years.

The jets were to be taken out of service after 2025, but as Postmedia recently reported, delays in the Liberal government’s plan to buy replacements means the jets will need to continue operating until 2032. While the Department of National Defence says it still has yet to figure out how much that will cost, a December 2014 report produced by DND and the Canadian Forces raised concerns about further extending the life of the CF-18s.

“Rough order of magnitude incremental costs for an Estimated Life Expectancy of 2030 are just over $1.5 billion and are primarily due to the requirement for a new structural life extension program needed to enable the CF-18 to be flown beyond its current safe life,” said the report, which was prepared for the previous Conservative government.

That roughly $1.5 billion would be on top of the $500 million the Liberal government has set aside to buy 18 used Australian F-18s as a stop-gap until it can acquire new planes.

Some savings could be found from the cost of extending the service of the CF-18s if the military reduces their flying hours, the report said.

• Canada’s CF-18s to fly until 2032 as new fighter jets expected to be slowly phased in
• Andrew Coyne: Fighter jet mess reeks of politics, deceit and cowboy economics
• Canada scraps plan to buy Boeing fighters and will go with used Australian F-18s

The jets, first received in 1982, will be 50 years old when they are retired.

“The government has stated the need to invest further in the life extension and continued operation of the CF-18 fleet,” said DND spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier. “The cost will be known once investigations are complete.

“Life extension would occur under continuing in-service support using already proven engineering and maintenance processes,” he said.

During the 2015 election campaign the Liberals promised to immediately launch a competition to buy replacements for the CF-18s. Once elected, they instead decided to buy 18 Super Hornets from Boeing as a temporary measure, then scuttled that arrangement over a trade dispute between the U.S. aircraft manufacturer and Canadian aerospace firm Bombardier.

They have committed to buying 88 new fighter jets in a program that could cost as much as $19 billion, a price which does not include long-term maintenance. Troy Crosby, director general of defence major projects at Public Services and Procurement Canada, said that a request for proposals from companies for the new jets is expected to be issued in spring 2019, with a contract likely not signed until late 2021 or early 2022.

The department said it is still evaluating information from various fighter jet companies and will at some point release a list of those firms approved to take part in the upcoming competition.

Canada’s CF-18 jets, first received in 1982, will be 50 years old when they are retired. Trevor Robb/Postmedia/File

The first replacement aircraft for the CF-18s are expected to arrive in 2025 but the delivery of all 88 planes would not be completed until 2030, according to federal government documents distributed to industry representatives at a Jan. 22 meeting in Ottawa. The last CF-18s would then be retired in 2032.

Aerospace industry officials have privately said it would have made more sense to launch an immediate competition and fast-track the purchase of new aircraft instead of dumping money into keeping older jets airborne.

Over the last decade the Canadian Forces have investigated various options to replace the CF-18s, which have been upgraded over the years.

In 2001 a modernization project was launched to allow the planes to continue operating until 2017-2020. Structural improvements to maintain the fleet have been ongoing and another upgrade program is in the works to keep the planes flying until 2025, according to the RCAF.

That will provide the planes with various systems to allow them to operate with allied air forces as well as meet new rules to fly in domestic and international airspace, and could potentially involve upgrades to weapons.

It is unclear how extensive another upgrade beyond that would need to be to keep the planes flying from 2025 to 2032