The F-35

[Guest]

Seems the Libs are stacking the deck.....

Liberals changed fighter jet requirement, RCAF commander says

Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press
Published Monday, November 28, 2016 10:07PM EST

OTTAWA - Opposition critics accused the Liberal government of trying to manufacture a crisis Monday after the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force pulled back the curtain on Canada's apparent fighter-jet shortage.

Lt.-Gen. Michael Hood told the Senate defence committee the Liberals recently changed the number of jet fighters he is required to have ready at any given time for NATO missions and to defend North America.

The change was made after he testified in April that he was "comfortable" with the air force's current fleet of CF-18s, Hood said.

As a result, the current number of CF-18s available is now insufficient, Hood said, while Canada will also need to buy more new planes than originally expected.

The previous Conservative government had planned to purchase 65 F-35 stealth fighters.

"Certainly the policy of the government of Canada would mean that 65 is not sufficient," Hood said, later adding: "They've changed the policy of the number of aircraft I have to have."

The fatal crash of a CF-18 fighter jet near Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake in Alberta cast a shadow over Hood's appearance before the committee, with the meeting cut short after he confirmed the pilot had died.

But while expressing condolences for the family of the pilot, who had not yet been identified, the air force commander said he didn't see any link between the crash and the debate over the fighter jet fleet.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan pointed to the policy change on aircraft numbers when he announced last week that Canada planned to buy 18 Super Hornet jets as an "interim" solution to the air force's "capability gap" until a competition to replace the CF-18s could be held.

Hood shed some more light on it on Monday, saying the Liberals increased the number of jets the air force is required to have available at a moment's notice.

Asked the reason for the change after the committee meeting, Hood said: "I'm not privy to the decisions behind the policy change."

The minister previously said the Liberals are not comfortable with the same level of "risk" as the previous government because Canada was not capable of meeting both NORAD demands and NATO demands at the same time.

Critics immediately latched onto Hood's comments as proof the Liberal decision to buy Hornets now and delay a competition to replace the CF-18s for five years is part of a larger plan to avoid buying the F-35.

"He's confirmed the numbers required was a political decision," said Conservative defence critic James Bezan. "This is a hoax and completely politically driven."

Hood revealed to reporters that the change implemented by the government since April relates to Canada's relationship with NATO.

Until recently, Canada committed a certain number of fighter jets as well as ships, troops and other military equipment on a voluntary basis each year. Any fighter jets committed were drawn from the stock providing defence of North America, Hood said.

But under the new policy, Canada will have what Hood described as a "firm" commitment to NATO in terms of the number of aircraft that it must provide. While he did not reveal specifics, Hood said the result is that he can't draw upon those defending the continent.

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute questioned why the government would change the policy when it was still in the midst of a comprehensive defence review.

"The change in policy makes what they're doing on fighters seem a lot more rational," he said.

"But it's interesting that change happened outside of the defence policy review, which is looking at all of our defence policies."

Perry also asked whether the Liberal government would shore up Canada's other commitments to NATO, notably to increase defence spending to two per cent of gross domestic product  http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-changed-fighter-jet-requirement-rcaf-commander-says-1.3181149

[Guest]

Interesting development, the title of the piece might just as well be: Proven warrior vs flashy newbee. 

Congress Wants A-10 vs. F-35 Flyoff

Dec 1, 2016 Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

 

Lawmakers want to make retirement of the U.S. Air Force’s beloved A-10 attack aircraft contingent on a flyoff between the Warthog and the new F-35, as well as completion of the fifth-generation fighter’s final test period.                                                                         

The move, outlined in the reconciled $618.7 billion defense policy bill for 2017, is a win for A-10 champions on Capitol Hill, who have been sparring with the Air Force for years over the service’s plan to sunset the venerable Warthog to move precious resources and maintainers to the F-35. It also fuels speculation that the Air Force will give up trying to retire the A-10 for the foreseeable future, a move several top service officials have recently alluded to in interviews with Aviation Week.

In the compromise bill, unveiled Nov. 30, House and Senate negotiators adopted a provision that would mandate the Pentagon’s top weapons tester complete comparison tests of the F-35 and A-10 performing the Warthog’s primary missions: close-air support (CAS) of soldiers in the heat of battle, combat search and rescue, and airborne forward air control. The chief weapons tester must report to Congress on the results of this test, as well as the findings of the F-35’s final test period, called initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E), expected to begin in 2018.

The Air Force may begin divesting the A-10 only after the secretary submits a report to lawmakers on the results of IOT&E and the flyoff, a plan to address any concerns about the F-35’s capability, and a strategy to preserve the service’s ability to conduct the missions, according to the text of the reconciled bill. The House expects to hold a floor vote on the bill on Friday, with the Senate following early next week.

At the very least, this likely means that the Air Force can’t begin to retire the A-10 until 2019 at the earliest. Although the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) is optimistic IOT&E will begin in early 2018—already a delay from the planned start date of August 2017—the director of operational test and evaluation told Aviation Week recently that the final test phase could be delayed until early 2019.   

Pushback from Congress and the public has successfully forced the Air Force to postpone the A-10’s retirement date year after year, most recently outlining a plan to begin drawing down squadrons in fiscal 2018. The decision to sunset the Warthog was purely budget driven, the Air Force has said, with leaders stressing that they cannot afford to keep flying both the A-10 and the new F-35 in the current fiscal climate.

But pressure has been building to do away with the plan altogether. The multirole F-35 has been billed as an across-the-board replacement for all of the Air Force’s legacy fighter jets, but critics say the F-35 cannot match the A-10 as a single-mission CAS platform—a claim service leaders have acknowledged over the past year.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office even got involved this summer, with the congressional watchdog saying in an August report that the Air Force did not do its due diligence in assessing the risks posed by retiring the Warthog before the end of its expected service life, including potential readiness gaps.

And with a new administration set to take the reins in January, the Department of Defense may have more cash to spare to support both the F-35 and the A-10.  President-Elect Donald Trump has said he will do away with sequestration in the first 100 days of his term, as well as increase the Air Force’s fighter fleet to 1,200 combat-coded aircraft.

While government planners hammer out the details of if and when the A-10 will go away, the Air Force depots, at least, are preparing to keep the Warthog flying well into the future.  

“They have re-geared up, we’ve turned on the depot line, we’re building it back up in capacity and supply chain,” said Air Force Materiel Command chief Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski in an Oct. 24 interview. “Our command, anyway, is approaching this as another airplane that we are sustaining indefinitely.”

[bluemic]

Interesting video featuring Laurie Hawn and his thoughts on the Super Hornet.

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/former-fighter-pilot-turned-mp-criticizes-federal-decision-to-buy-super-hornets

mic

Edited December 3, 2016 by bluemic

[Kip Powick]

I instructed with  Laurie for 3 years ....good guy, One of the few who belly landed a T-33 when it flamed out on final at Gimli !!!

He went F-18s later in life and that was his dream...however ...once a "whiz bang driver."......"always a whiz bang driver" and I don't fault him for that but I certainly disgaree with his opinion about Canada needing the expensive toy. Obviously based on his flying experience he is going to want the F-35 however I disagree with the premis that we will be come useless as an asset the UN etc..... 

Canada has no need for spending billions on an aircraft that is not realy needed in Canada. It would not be that difficult to opt out of NATO/NORAD requirements and come back with a commitment to fly heavy transport and SAR birds in support of UN/NATO and NORAD operations...we are a sovereign nation and as such we can dictate what we want to contribute  to any peace keeping mission as well as any world conflicts we may become involved with..

Arctic patrols, (to protect? our sovereignty),  can be done with Transport aircraft just as well as whiz-bang aircraft for a lot less cost and can remain on patrol a lot longer than any fighter aircraft.

You would have to be naive if you think the US will let any " bad guys " fly into Canada, the USAF would be up here in a heart beat and will outnumber any aircraft we could put in the air and will be controlling the "scene". There comes a time when we, as Canadians, have to  have a change in attitude and face reality with respect to spending billions on aircraft we don't really need.

Just my opinion 

Could be wrong but I'm putting on the tin hat and respirator as I think bluemic as an ex whiz bang driver will wade in with and opposite opinion...

Edited December 4, 2016 by Kip Powick
speling

[ACAV]

Already posted. My bad.

[Super 80]

I think the honest bottom line here for Canada in 2016 is we don't have the luxury of waiting to see if the F-35 is vindicated by history, a colossal failure or unceremoniously killed by the US congress.

We don't know if the F-35 will be the right decision, we do know the F-18 won't be the wrong one.

Of course ask someone who was in Afghanistan and they will tell you Canada needs helicopter gunships.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Super 80

[mo32a]

I see the US Air Force is going hang on to the Warthog for a few more years so maybe we could go that route.

[Guest]

Here is another article re the F18s. 

Canada To Buy Interim Boeing Super Hornet Fleet

Nov 22, 2016James Drew | Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

• • EMAIL
• INSHARE

COMMENTS 100

Canada will buy 18 F/A-18 Super Hornets as a stopgap measure until a CF-18 replacement is chosen and fielded: U.S. Navy

 

The Canadian government is beginning negotiations with Boeing for 18 “interim” F/A-18 Super Hornets to bridge a widening airpower gap until a new fighter can be competitively selected to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force’s (RCAF) remaining 1980s-vintage CF-18s.

Canadian Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan disclosed plans to buy the stopgap Super Hornets during a press conference in Ottawa on Nov. 22, providing another shot in the arm for Boeing’s fighter business in St. Louis. The announcement comes less than a week after the U.S. State Department approved the possible sale of 40 F/A-18E/Fs to Kuwait and 72 F-15QAs to Qatar in deals worth $31 billion combined.

Speculation has been rife that the Liberal government in Canada would purchase an interim fighter fleet, having rolled back the previous government’s plan to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35As, based on Canada’s long-running involvement with the U.S.-led Joint Strike Fighter consortium. Sajjan says the fighter procurement file has been “completely mismanaged” over the past decade, and now the country has too few CF-18 Hornets to meets shared security commitments under Norad and NATO.

Canada bought 138 CF-18s from McDonnell Douglas between 1982-1988 and the number stands at 77 today. That is not enough to sustain combat operations abroad while also providing homeland defense and backup for contingency operations, explains Canada’s chief of the defense staff, Gen. Jonathan Vance.
“It’s not just deployed missions that count, it’s deterrence,” Vance says. “It’s the ability to respond to another 9/11-like situation and the unforeseen. It’s about having something on the shelf.”

Judy Foote, the minister for Public Services and Procurement Canada, says the Super Hornet was chosen because it does not need further development and is highly interoperable with the U.S. military. No fielding timeline or cost estimate was given, as those details will be worked out during negotiations with Boeing.
An industry source says Super Hornet procurement by the U.S. Navy and potentially Kuwait would extend F/A-18 assembly in St. Louis into the early 2020s based on an output of two aircraft per month. Canada’s aircraft won’t necessarily enter at the back of the line, the source confirms.

Responding to the news, Boeing Defense, Space & Security says it is “honored” to meet the RCAF’s immediate multi-role fighter needs in support of sovereign and North American defense. Boeing touted the aircraft’s operational capabilities and low acquisition and sustainment cost, while noting the company’s $6 billion contribution to the Canadian aerospace industry over the past five years. Boeing remains committed to offering a technologically cutting-edge version of Super Hornet for the longer-term CF-X requirement, likely incorporating technology upgrades being considered by the U.S. Navy.

Lockheed says it is disappointed that Canada chose to buy Super Hornets over F-35s. But Lockheed likely takes comfort in the fact that Canada will remain a bill-paying member of the F-35 program going into the CF-X procurement. “The F-35 has proven in all competitions to be lower in cost than fourth-generation competitors,” a Lockheed spokesman says. “The F-35 is combat-ready and available today to meet Canada’s needs for the next 40 years.”

The Canadian government will trigger a competition for a permanent fighter, or CF-X, after concluding its Defense Policy Review. The acquisition strategy will be informed by recent engagements with the Western combat aircraft industry and governments, including the U.S., Denmark, Australia, France, Sweden and Germany.

A source familiar with the Canadian fighter deliberations says Ottawa received information about the U.S. Lockheed Martin F-35 and Boeing F/A-18 and European Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab JAS 39 Gripen. The source says the European competitors were troubled by the apparent preference for an American-made interim fighter, as expressed by Minister Judy Foote during the press conference. But they have been assured that the forthcoming CF-X competition will be open, transparent and fair, as Foote stressed during the media conference. She says the “deck will not be stacked” in Boeing or Lockheed’s favor by these procurement decisions.

“Right now, the concern is that it will tip in America’s favor, regardless of Lockheed or Boeing,” the source says. “It also gives Boeing the chance to develop its Advanced Super Hornet, so any of those capabilities like a glass cockpit and stealth pods may no longer be considered developmental.”

Canada appears to have been swayed by its discussions with the U.S. and Australia in picking interim Super Hornets, since Canberra also purchased twin-seat F/A-18Fs as an interim combat capability when it became apparent that the F-35 would take longer than planned. The Royal Australian Air Force now operates 24 F/A-18F and 12 EA-18GGrowler electronic attack variants. Canada’s Super Hornets could be modified to the EA-18G Growler standard once the chosen CF-18 replacement comes online.
 

[Guest]

Seems that the New Aircraft may not have any pilots to fly them.

Retired RCAF commanders say not enough pilots to fly ‘interim’ fighter jets Liberals plan to buy

 

‎Yesterday, ‎December ‎23, ‎2016, ‏‎10:15:39 PM | Lee Berthiaume, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Two former Royal Canadian Air Force commanders are raising questions about the Liberal government’s rush to buy “interim” fighter jets, saying there won’t be enough pilots to fly the planes for years to come.

Retired lieutenant-generals Kenneth Pennie and Andre Deschamps say that defeats the purpose of acquiring Super Hornets as a stop-gap measure, and running a full competition now makes more sense.

“Trying to do a short-term Band-Aid is not going to be helpful,” said Deschamps, who commanded the air force from 2009-2012.

“The only thing that’s going to work to address the gap is to finish off the competition process, pick a winner, and implement it. Then you can start addressing this gap concern.”

Trying to do a short-term Band-Aid is not going to be helpful

The government announced last month it wants to buy 18 Super Hornets before a competition can be held in five years to find a replacement for the air force’s aging CF-18 fighter jets.

The Super Hornets are needed because the air force doesn’t have enough jets to meet the government’s recent order that it be ready to defend North America and contribute to NATO at the same time.

In separate interviews with The Canadian Press, Pennie and Deschamps welcomed any move to increase the size of the air force’s fighter-jet fleet after years of budget cuts and attrition.

But they said such an expansion cannot happen overnight, even with the rushed purchase of new Super Hornets, because of the need for more trained personnel.

The air force has struggled to get enough aspiring top guns and technicians to fly the military’s 76 CF-18s even without 18 new cockpits to fill.

The personnel shortage got so bad that at one point the air force bent minimum medical standards such as vision and hearing requirements to retain enough trained pilots.

“We’re barely producing the number of pilots we need to produce right now for the size of the air force we have,” said Deschamps, who as RCAF commander recommended Canada buy the F-35 stealth fighter and has advised several fighter-jet manufacturers since leaving the military.

National Defence would not comment on current personnel levels, citing national security.

It also has not said when the Super Hornets are expected to be bought and delivered from U.S. aerospace giant Boeing Co.

It would be premature to discuss timelines at this time

“It would be premature to discuss timelines at this time, as discussions with the United States government and Boeing are ongoing,” National Defence spokesman Dan Le Bouthillier said in an email.

But in announcing the plan to purchase Super Hornets on Nov. 22, cabinet ministers said the government would also set aside money to train more pilots and maintenance crew.

Pennie and Deschamps said even if enough potential pilots and mechanics are recruited, it will take time to get them through training.

“We don’t have the depth in our system of personnel to operate two fleets simultaneously without significant growth in the number of personnel,” said Pennie, who ran the air force from 2003-2005.

“And that takes many years.”

The Liberals have promised to replace the CF-18s with a full and open competition, but warned the process could take five years as the government wants to make sure it gets things right.

Pennie and Deschamps questioned why a competition should take that long, echoing two former heads of military procurement at National Defence who have said it could be held in half the time.

The two retired air force commanders also expressed concerns about the potential costs of operating two different types of fighter jets at the same time until a replacement for the CF-18s can be obtained.

“Airplanes are expensive and training all the pilots and making sure they’re supported to the degree they need to be supported, that all comes at a cost,” said Pennie, who is now a consultant in Ottawa but says he has not done any work on fighter jets.

“That’s why the interim aircraft fleet is a bad idea. It drives a lot of cost on an interim basis that you don’t need to be spending.”

Ministers have admitted they have an idea how much the Super Hornets will cost and that it will be more expensive in the long run for taxpayers, but they have refused to say by how much in order to protect their bargaining power with Boeing.

[Kip Powick]

Sounds like a couple of high ranking retirees want the competition to replace the F-18 to start NOW...... Probably because their 
"Lobbying Power" will decrease as time marches on and younger high ranking retirees look to be Lobbyist as well..

[Guest]

Hundreds of deficiencies could push F-35 tests to 2019

• 13 January, 2017
• SOURCE: Flightglobal.com
• BY: Leigh Giangreco
• Washington DC

Plagued by a delayed delivery of crucial software and shortfalls with its automated maintenance system, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will begin initial operational test and evaluation more than a year after its planned August 2017 date.

In his last scathing report on the F-35, outgoing top Pentagon weapon tester Michael Gilmore gave early 2019 as an optimistic target date for initial operational test and evaluation. Even as the F-35 Joint Programme Office plans to reduce time in developmental testing in order to move ahead with IOT&E, Gilmore warns that hundreds of deficiencies will push full combat tests to late 2018 or early 2019 at the earliest.

Flight sciences testing identified more issues that will delay IOT&E, such as excessive and violent vertical oscillations experienced on the F-35C during catapult launches. The Navy considers the issue a “must fix” and directed the JPO should address it before IOT&E.

“Fleet pilots reported that the oscillations were so severe that they could not read flight critical data,” Gilmore writes. “Most of the pilots locked their harness during the catapult shot which made emergency switches hard to reach, again creating, in their opinion, an unacceptable and it unsafe situation.”

It’s clear given the numerous issues on the aircraft, including 270 high-priority deficiencies in Block 3F performance identified in a recent review, that Lot 10 will be delivered without the full Block 3F capability, Gilmore writes. Block 3F will bring the F-35 to its full combat capability, allowing 9g manoeuvres versus 7g loads with current Block 3i software and support for gun testing. Other critical 3F capabilities have fallen behind including Small Diameter Bomb integration, MADL capability to share imagery and basic Link 16 that allows the aircraft to transmit and receive messages.

When the US Air Force announced initial operational capability for the F-35A last August, the USAF’s chief of Air Combat Command Gen Herbert Carlisle told reporters blocks 3F and 4 would not be available until 2018 and 2021, respectively. Despite challenges during an interim readiness assessment, Carlisle assured the Block 3F software would ameliorate earlier issues on the aircraft.

In an August memo, Gilmore doubted the F-35A’s initial combat ready status. The Block 3i configuration, which carries weapons limited to Block 2B, would need support to locate and avoid modern threats, acquire targets and engage enemy aircraft he wrote. Gilmore echoed those criticisms in his last report, saying the F-35 with Block 3i software could not even match up in a permissive environment to some legacy aircraft, such as the F-18 and A-10. He also asserts pilots report the F-35’s electro-optical targeting system’s ability to identify targets is worse than those fielded on legacy aircraft.

“Environmental effects, such as high humidity, often forced pilots to fly closer to the target than desired in order to discern target features and then engage for weapon employment, much closer than needed with legacy systems, potentially alerting the enemy, exposing the F-35 to threats around the target area or requiring delays to regain adequate spacing to set up an attack,” he says.

The latest version of the F-35’s maintenance system will not be completed by the end of the system development and demonstration phase. ALIS 3.0 will not be delivered until mid-2018 and even then, several capabilities from that version will be deferred until later that summer, according to Gilmore.

Mission data loads, a compilation of mission data files which help identify enemy and friendly radar signals, for specific geographic regions will not be verified until 2019 at the earliest. Once delivered, the mission data loads will not be ready to face threats in testing, let alone combat, Gilmore writes.

Gilmore also pushed back on the JPO’s recent assertion that cost overruns from SDD could be recouped with existing program funding. The aircraft’s deficiencies will increase the SDD cost more than expected and the JPO must look within their existing budget or at funding set aside for follow-on modernisation, he says.

By continuing their pursuit of a block buy for lots 12 through 14 before completing IOT&E, Gilmore argues the JPO is flouting the “fly before you buy” approach. The block buy would deliver 452 aircraft in addition to the 490 procured under lots 1 through 11, a hefty procurement before full-rate production.

[Guest]

Until this is fixed, only "heavy pilots" need apply to fly one.  I guess until then a mandatory "weigh in" will be in place.

DOD Weapons Tester Cites Progress On F-35 Ejection Seat

Jan 13, 2017Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense ReportIN

 

F-35: Lockheed Martin

 

In a 62-page report that focuses primarily on delays and challenges for the F-35 program, one of the Joint Strike Fighter’s toughest critics highlighted progress toward fixing a safety issue with the aircraft’s ejection seat.

At issue is a problem with the design of the F-35’s escape system that poses a significant risk of neck damage or death during ejection of pilots in the lowest weight range. For middleweight pilots just above that 103-136 lb. range, the U.S. Air Force has also acknowledged an “elevated” level of risk. The problem, discovered in 2015, led the U.S. military services to bar pilots under 136 lb. from flying the F-35.

But the Joint Program Office (JPO) is making progress toward fixing the issue, including completing qualification testing of an upgraded ejection seat designed to reduce the risk to pilots weighing less than 136 lb., according to the Pentagon’s top weapons tester. Martin-Baker, which manufactures the US16E seat, last year came up with a three-part solution to protect a lightweight pilot’s head and neck during ejection: a lighter helmet to ease strain on the neck during the first phase of an ejection; a lightweight switch on the seat to delay deployment of the main parachute; and a fabric panel sewn between the parachute risers that will protect the pilot’s head from moving backward during the parachute opening, called a “head support panel” or HSP.

Data from the qualification tests, which wrapped up in September, showed that the HSP significantly reduced neck loads during the ejection sequence, and that the switch successfully reduced opening shock from the main parachute for lightweight pilots, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) assessed in its most recent annual report.

But despite “improved results,” the U.S. services have yet to determine the extent to which the risk to lightweight pilots has been improved by the three-part fix. The weight restriction likely won’t be lifted until all F-35s have the upgraded seat and all pilots have the “Gen III Lite” helmet, DOT&E concluded.

The program office plans to start retrofitting fielded F-35s with the modifications to the seats in February, and delivering aircraft with the upgraded seat in Lot 10, starting in January 2018, DOT&E says. The lighter helmet will be delivered starting in November 2017. If the timeline holds, the Air Force may open F-35 training to pilots weighing less than 136 lb. as early as December 2017, DOT&E wrote.

DOT&E highlighted one additional problem with the escape system. During certain conditions, pilots may be injured by the Transparency Removal System, which shatters the canopy before an ejection, allowing the seat and pilot to leave the aircraft. The program office has yet to complete the additional testing and analysis needed to determine the risk posed by the system during off-nominal ejections, DOT&E wrote.
 

[Guest]

Another POV, that might best fit what we in Canada need, I think we are more about defending Canada rather than attacking target rich areas outside of Canada. 

Super Hornet could compete with Lockheed F-35

• 23 January, 2017
• SOURCE: Flightglobal.com
• BY: Leigh Giangreco
• Washington DC

Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet could steal orders away from the Lockheed Martin F-35 if the Trump Administration adjusts defence priorities, military acquisition analyst Andrew Hunter told an audience 23 January at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

An "advanced Super Hornet" still can’t compete with the stealthy F-35 in airspace monitored by radar surveillance, but a semi-low-observable F/A-18E/F with more carriage capacity could emerge as an attractive option against less sophisticated threats, according to Hunter.

“But if your strategy requires to operate continuously in denied access air environments, there is no such thing as a comparable Super Hornet,” he adds. “It simply doesn’t exist.”

In 2015, US Gen Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called Russia the greatest existential threat to the US followed by China, North Korea and Islamic State terrorists. That order affects how the US Department of Defense approaches its procurement priorities. When it comes to air, it means the Pentagon has set its sights on buying high-end aircraft that can penetrate more sophisticated Russian air defences in Crimea.

But there is some indication from Trump’s previous statements and his proclivity for Russian president Vladimir Putin that the old order could be flipped. US president Donald Trump’s national security team could make terrorism their top concern and let the Russian threat fall to the back burner, according to CSIS defence budget analyst Todd Harrison.

“If that holds true then why do you need as many of these stealthy aircraft?” Harrison says. “So it could dramatically change what we’re buying.”

Last week, USAF chief Gen David Goldfein expressed his support for Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Senator John McCain’s proposal to add 300 low-cost fighters to the budget. That move would make sense if the DOD pivots its focus toward fighting terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, where light-attack aircraft such as the Embraer Super Tucano already operate.

Trump’s proposal for a price shoot-out on the F-35 programme between Boeing and Lockheed has some precedent. Harrison noted the US Navy already pits the Super Hornet against the carrier-based F-35C variant, with its numerous budget requests to increase the number of F/A-18E/Fs while reducing orders for the F-35C.

The service requested 14 Super Hornets in the most recent defence policy bill, which were turned down by Congress. A recent white paper from McCain suggested continuing this trend, pointing to the growing shortfall of Navy fighters and ongoing delays to the F-35C programme. McCain proposed procuring 58 more Super Hornets and 16 EA-18G Growlers over the next five years, but would continue F-35 procurement as quickly as possible.

If Lockheed would feel competition from any aircraft, it would be the Super Hornet, Harrison adds.

“I think it’s easy to say Trump doesn’t know what he’s talking about, the F-18 doesn’t have the same capabilities as F-35C,” Harrison says. “All of that’s true, but I think he knew that he was picking at a scab.”

[Guest]

A

US defense secretary orders immediate review of F-35 and Air Force One

• 27 January, 2017
• SOURCE: Flightglobal.com
• BY: Leigh Giangreco
• Washington DC

The US defense secretary has ordered an immediate review of the Air Force One recapitalisation and Lockheed Martin F-35 programmes, following president Donald Trump’s earlier threats to lower the costs of both platforms.

In a 26 January memo, Defense Secretary James Mattis ordered the deputy secretary of defense to examine ways to reduce the cost of the both the F-35 and Air Force One replacement programmes. Lockheed’s stocks dropped sharply following Mattis’ announcement.

Under the presidential aircraft recapitalisation review, the White House Military Office and deputy secretary will identify specific areas where costs could be cut. This could include autonomous operations, aircraft power generation,cooling, survivability and communications capabilities, the memo states.

Although Trump has criticised the entire F-35 programme, the review will take only the C variant into consideration, which accounts for the smallest share of Lockheed’s programme of record. The Super Hornet needs a catapult to launch from a carrier and would not be able to replace the short-takeoff and vertical landing B variant.

“In parallel, the deputy secretary of defense will oversee a review that compares F-35C and F/A-18E/F operational capabilities and assess the extent that the F/A-18E/F improvements (an advanced Super Hornet) can be made in order to provide a competitive, cost effective, fighter aircraft alternative,” Mattis writes.

The decision to pit the F-35C against an advanced Super Hornet follows Trump’s 21 December tweet, which targeted the F-35 programme’s cost overruns and suggested Boeing price out a “comparable Super Hornet.” While even an advanced Super Hornet is unable to compete with the F-35 in terms of stealth, FlightGlobal previously noted the F/A-18E/F could provide a natural, non-very low observable (VLO) stealth replacement for the C variant. The Super Hornet could still perform well against less sophisticated threats.

A Super Hornet and F-35 battle has some precedent already. In November, Canada announced the government would purchase 18 Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets as an interim fix for its current capability gap and later launch an open competition to replace its aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets.

The C variant may represent a small margin of Lockheed’s production, but any decision by the U.S. Navy to reduce or abandon its buy would trigger a significant cost increase to the US Air Force, Marine Corps and international partners involved in the joint programme, Center for Strategic and International Studies analyst Andrew Hunter said earlier this week.

“Although there have been some changes on the international [partners], on the whole it’s held up very well over the last several years,” Hunter said. “But if the Navy fell off the table that would have a very profound impact on unit costs.”

[Guest]

And yet another possible wrinkle for the F-35

Norway Fears Lockheed Not Ready To Support F-35

Jan 27, 2017Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense ReportIN

 

 

OSLO, Norway—As Norway readies to welcome its first F-35s in country in just nine short months, top defense officials here worry Lockheed Martin won’t be ready to support the new fleet.

The nation plans to begin operating the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) almost as soon as it arrives on Norwegian soil in November, according to air force officials. But while Lockheed has proved it can successfully deliver aircraft from the production line, the company has yet to show it will have a reliable system in place to support the aircraft on “day two,” says Maj. Gen. Morten Klever, Norway’s program director for F-35.

Norway has identified a number of “risk areas,” and is currently working with the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO), Lockheed and engine maker Pratt & Whitney to mitigate those risks, Klever says.

“They will start training for initial operating capability immediately and everything needs to be in place for them to do that,” Klever says. “Is the industry ready to support and sustain the aircraft in Norway? There is a risk right now.”

Lockheed and the partners are setting up roughly 30 F-35 bases internationally between now and 2020, a massive undertaking, Klever says. In particular, Klever is concerned about Lockheed’s ability on day two to provide the necessary spare parts, equipment and support, while at the same time navigating the specific laws and regulations of Norway and eight other partner countries.

“I think Lockheed Martin really needs to step up the work on sustainment,” Klever says. “After all, the partners are expecting a seamless global sustainment solution.”

Chief of the Royal Norwegian Air Force Brig. Gen. Tonje Skinnarland echoes Klever’s concerns, adding that she is keeping a close eye on some “critical deviations” that have emerged recently.

“We are on a very tight plan, a very tight schedule, and everything is linked together,” Skinnarland says. “If we drift off the plan for any reason it will affect our ability to be operational along the path we have.”

Lockheed pushed back on these concerns, pointing to the arrival of the first F-35s in country for the Israeli air force in December 2016 as proof the company will be ready to support Norway’s F-35s. Working with Lockheed, Israel successfully launched a two-ship flight just 16 hr. after the aircraft touched down, company spokesman Mike Rein says.

“In the six weeks since the arrival, the IAF has met or exceeded all of their flying objectives and the aircraft and system remain in a ready state,” Rein says. “We are confident that it will be a similar case when Norway’s F-35s arrive in country for the first time.”
Italy’s F-35s, which arrived at Amendola air base in December, also are flying sorties according to plan with Lockheed’s support, Rein adds. The company expects similar successes at U.S. Naval Air Station Lemoore once F-35C operations begin there.

Meanwhile, the men and women on the ground at Ørland Main Air Station are doing their part to stand up the first Norwegian F-35 squadron. But the transition from F-16 to F-35 is just one piece of a sweeping modernization effort across Norway’s armed forces. As it introduces new equipment like F-35, Boeing’s P-8 maritime patrol aircraft (MPA), and new search-and-rescue (SAR) helicopters, Norway is re-structuring bases across the country to streamline operations in a tight fiscal environment. The government is consolidating the air force organization, recently shuttering the air wing at Bodo that was home to two F-16 squadrons, one of which has now been deactivated in anticipation of the F-35. At the same time, Norway also will close Andoya, currently the main maritime patrol base, once the legacy P-3 MPA fleet is retired.

Ørland will become the nation’s main combat airbase, eventually home to two F-35 squadrons—the historic 332 and 331 squadrons, which flew Spitfires in World War II—advanced air and base defense forces, and an upgraded SAR helicopter detachment. It must also be able to accommodate deployments of allied aircraft, in particular the NATO Airborne Warning and Control System. The new P-8s will be based at Evenes air base north of the Arctic Circle, along with forward-deployed F-35s, to hunt for Russian submarines.

“We need to be more lean and more effective, and use our finances in a better way, but we also have to change our perception to network centric warfare,” says Col. Aage Lyder Longva, commander of the 132 Air Wing.

The Norwegian Defense Estate Agency (NDEA) began building the support infrastructure for F-35 at Ørland in May 2015, with the goal of getting the basic equipment in place for operations by the time the first aircraft arrive. The outer shell of the new F-35 facility is already complete; now, Longva is waiting on Lockheed to install the eight simulators and necessary equipment for the Autonomic Logistics and Information System, the maintenance backbone of the new fleet.

To protect the new F-35s from prying eyes, base personnel are building a dirt wall around the outer perimeter, says Olaf Dobloug, chief of combat aircraft base construction with the NDEA. They also are updating and extending the runway by 300 meters, and adding new navigational and lighting systems.  

Altogether, Norway has estimated readying both Ørland and Evenes to accommodate new aircraft across the force—including infrastructure modernization and building new facilities—will cost 10 billion kroner, or about $1.3 billion, Longva says. Just over half of that will go exclusively toward supporting the F-35, he notes.

While much of the upgrade is focused on what happens inside base walls, Longva and Olaf also must keep in mind the surrounding area. A significant portion of the funds will go to noise abatement, partially due to stricter environmental regulations recently established by the Norwegian government and local authorities. By law the NDEA must offer to buy the private houses in the “red zone,” where noise from the existing F-16s and future F-35s will be the worst. If the residents choose to stay, the NDEA must install insulation into residents’ walls to protect against the noise.

Norway, Lockheed and the F-35 Joint Program Office clearly have a long way to go to prepare for the arrival of the JSF. But the new aircraft is not just a replacement for the legacy F-16 that Norway currently relies on to be its eyes and ears in the North Atlantic, Skinnarland says. The air force must fundamentally change its thinking to take full advantage of the new, fifth-generation capability.

“We have to be able to utilize the airframe in new ways, not continue in the same ways we have used the F-16,” Skinnarland says. “We have to develop concepts on how to operate, what’s the capabilities and possibilities of the new aircraft.”

[Guest]

Latest on the Super Hornet:

Stopgap Super Hornet purchase could have $5B to $7B price tag

Canada aims to begin receiving U.S.-made fighter jets by 2019

By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Jan 31, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 31, 2017 7:50 AM ET

A U.S. navy air crew walks the flight line in front of a squadron of Super Hornet fighters at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia last week. Canada has opened negotiations for the sole-source purchase of 18 of the advanced jet fighters. (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.

 

The Trudeau government has begun talks with Washington about the sole-source purchase of up to 18 Super Hornet jet fighters.

The measure, intended as a stopgap solution to ease pressure on the air force's aging fleet of CF-18s, could cost taxpayers between $5 billion and $7 billion over the lifetime of the aircraft, according to data circulating within the Department of National Defence and shared with CBC News by sources who insisted upon anonymity.

The figures are only preliminary, but they are backed up by U.S. congressional budget information.

CBC News was granted rare, extraordinary access to officials and facilities belonging to Boeing, the U.S. manufacturer of the Super Hornet, and to the U.S. navy's principal air base where the fighters operate and train. During that visit, Boeing officials confirmed Canada has begun talks with the Pentagon to buy the planes.

The decision to buy 18 warplanes in a sole-source deal, originally announced last fall, is meant to address what the Liberal government describes as an urgent "capability gap."

But it also lands Canada squarely in the middle of the Trump administration's showdown over the future of the Super Hornet's rival, the oft-maligned F-35.

1st delivery by 2019?

There are questions about what kind of deal Canada will get on the Super Hornets, especially with the new U.S. administration.

A final agreement, which requires congressional approval, will take about a year to negotiate, but CBC News has learned the Liberal government has already signalled it would like to see the first aircraft arrive in 2019, which would coincide with the next election.

A Boeing official, when asked, confirmed both the timeline and anticipated delivery date, and said the company is currently waiting for formal, written notice — known as a letter of request — from the Canadian government, which will be submitted to the U.S. Pentagon within the next few weeks.

CBC News was granted access to U.S. Naval Air Station Oceana at Virginia Beach to see U.S. navy Super Hornets in action. (Murray Brewster/CBC)

Dan Gillian, Boeing's vice-president of the F-18 programs, said the company is looking at how production of Canadian jets can be slotted alongside existing orders from the U.S. navy and Kuwait. Boeing currently produces two Super Hornets a month.

"We think we can build all of those airplanes in time to meet the customer demands," said Gillan. "We may have to increase production rate, but that is very doable."

U.S. navy costs a benchmark

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government promised in the last election not to buy Lockheed Martin's F-35 when it came time to replace Canada's entire 1980s-vintage CF-18 fleet.

The Liberals said they would buy a cheaper alternative and plow the savings back into rebuilding the navy, but Trudeau has since said the F-35 stealth fighter will not be excluded from an open competition for replacement jets.

Federal officials, including the head of the Royal Canadian Air Force, have taken pains to describe the process with Boeing as tentative and exploratory.

But Canadian military planners visited the company's St. Louis, Mo., engineering facility two weeks ago to scope out the customized features they want in the fighter.

That, along with a series of other factors, will determine how much Canada pays for what the Liberals insist is an "interim" solution to the problem of not having enough jet fighters to meet all of the country's military commitments.

A cost breakdown of the Super Hornets is provided in U.S. Department of Defence estimates:

• The base price for a Super Hornet, according to U.S. Department of Defence 2015 budget estimates, was $85 million ($65 million US) per aircraft.
• On top of that, there is what's known as government-furnished equipment, which can be anything from engines to radar and other electronics, depending on what the air force says it needs. That could add $26.2 million ($20 million US) per fighter — although those fees can sometimes be negotiated.
• Washington also levies what is known as a foreign military sales charge of about 3.5 per cent, but other costs for research and development could boost U.S. service charges to as high 11 per cent, according to Pentagon records.

"What an airplane costs depends upon configuration, timing of deliveries and quantities. The U.S. government documents are a good reflection," said Boeing's Gillian.

That all means the final cost of each individual Super Hornet could range from $115 million ($88 million US) to $123 million ($94 million US), bringing a total purchase price of between $1.9 billion ($1.5 billion US) and $2.1 billion ($1.6 billion US) for 18 jets.

Canada has begun talks with the U.S. Defence Department to buy up to 18 Boeing Super Hornets. (Murray Brewster/CBC)

But the Liberal government would also have to negotiate an in-service support contract and consider buying training simulators, which can add billions.

When those costs are added in, the total price tag for the "interim" Super Hornet solution could run between $5 billion and $7 billion over the life of the planes.

Economic benefits

If the Liberal government buys the planes entirely through a foreign military sales deal, it means Boeing will not automatically be required to provide what are called industrial offsets — essentially, guaranteed work for Canadian companies.

"It gets tricky," said Dave Perry, an analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. The Liberals would have to negotiate benefits separately under such a deal, he said.

"It doesn't mean you can't get an economic offset, it just a little murkier."

But late Monday, Boeing officials said the company was prepared to deliver an offset equal to the purchase price the U.S. navy pays, roughly $85 million ($65 million US) per aircraft.

The Trump factor

U.S. President Donald Trump has also added an unexpected wrinkle to the Liberal government's plan.

Prior to taking office, Trump tweeted that he'd asked Boeing to "price out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet" to the F-35 in response to rising costs in the stealth fighter program.

U.S. President Donald Trump signs executive orders at the U.S. Department of Defence in Arlington, Va., last week. There are questions about what kind of deal Canada will strike with the Trump administration to buy Super Hornet jet fighters. (Olivier Douliery/Getty Images)

Lockheed Martin said last week it was confident it would soon get the price of an F-35 down to $111 million ($85 million US) per plane. Canada would not have to pay the foreign military sales charge because it has already contributed toward the development of the project.

Much of the public debate in Canada has revolved around the enormous cost of the F-35. In fact, the Liberal government's distaste for the stealth fighter was formed partly by the former Conservative government's refusal to be more transparent about the price tag.

Perry said it would be ironic if Trump succeeded in quickly driving down the cost to the point where both fighters were competitively priced.

"If Trump is able to gets some extra savings out of Lockheed … my guess is you're looking at a 10 per cent cost difference [between the Super Hornet and the F-35]," he said.

 

 

Play Media

 

 

Super Hornets at U.S. NAS Oceana, Virginia Beach0:47

[Guest]

Seems that our new "Open" Government isn't.

• Article rank
• 31 Jan 2017
• Calgary Herald
• DAVID PUGLIESE
• Postmedia News

Report on jets pulled from DND website A report that warned against buying an interim fighter jet for the Canadian military will remain secret, even though it had previously been on the Defence Department’s website for more than a year.

The report was quietly pulled down from the site after the Liberal government announced its decision to purchase 18 Boeing Super Hornets as “interim” fighter jets until a permanent fleet for the existing CF-18 aircraft could be bought.

The Defence Research and Development Canada report recommended against the purchase of such “bridging” aircraft to deal with gaps in capability. The Liberal government has said Canada is facing a capability gap because it doesn’t have enough fighter jets to fulfill its military missions. Because of that it needs to buy the Super Hornets.

But the 2014 report that had been on the Department of National Defence website questioned that type of strategy.

“The costs involved with bridging options make them unsuitable for filling capability gaps in the short term,” the report states. “Any short term investment results in disproportionately high costs during the bridging period.”

The report was carefully reviewed for security issues before being put on the DND website, defence sources say. The report cited data in the public domain and there was no use of secret information. It was pulled from the website the day the Liberal government announced it was purchasing the Super Hornets.

At one point, the DND was looking at putting the report back on its site, with certain revisions, but that won’t be done.

“It is judged that given the current threat environment, the aggregate of the information contained in the report speaks to the capability of the Canadian Armed Forces and is sensitive in nature,” the Department of National Defence stated in an email to the Ottawa Citizen. “For this reason, the report cannot be easily excised and will no longer be made available to the public.”

The statement did not explain how the “threat environment” in 2014-2015, when the report was public, was different from the situation in 2016 when the report was pulled down.

The analysis also determined that whatever aircraft Canada selects to replace the CF-18, it should go with a single fleet of the same planes.

“The analysis found that a mixed fleet of 38 higher capability aircraft, chosen for their ability to fulfill the most challenging of the NATO missions, and 34 lower capability aircraft, capable of fulfilling Canada’s NORAD obligations, could not provide the same capability as the single fleet of 65 higher capability aircraft,” it stated.

The Liberal government has acknowledged the decision to buy the 18 Super Hornets will cost more in the long run but it has blamed the previous Conservative government for bungling the CF-18 replacement.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says Canada is facing a fighter capability gap when it comes to dealing with its commitments to NORAD and NATO.

But Lt.-Gen. Mike Hood, head of the RCAF, has said the gap was created in 2016 when the Liberals changed defence policy, requiring the RCAF to meet both its NATO and North American air defence commitments at the same time.

[Guest]

Not much to do with the F-35 but perhaps of interest. The USAF is looking investigating the purchase of "off the shelf" fighters for certain roles.

U.S. Air Force Study On Light Fighter Fleet Takes Shape

Jan 31, 2017Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense ReportIN

 

 

As the U.S. Air Force contemplates the right mix of high and low-end fighters, the service is filling in the details of a plan to study what commercial-off-the-shelf designs might be a good fit for a possible light-attack fleet.

In an updated wish list sent to President Donald Trump’s transition team in January, the Air Force asked for an additional $8 million to study a potential low-cost, light-attack aircraft to fight Islamic State terrorists. Top service officials have recently hinted that such a study is in the works, one likely to inform an emerging plan to consider buying 300 low-cost, low-end fighters for counterterrorism missions.

That plan is gaining traction, particularly as Trump signals he wants to boost defense spending and increase the number of combat-coded Air Force fighters to 1,200. Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein recently endorsed the idea of buying 300 low-cost, light-attack fighters, telling reporters he is preparing to talk with industry about engaging companies such as Textron, which builds the Scorpion light-attack fighter, and may begin to “experiment” with commercial-off-the-shelf designs for light fighters as soon as this spring.

Additional light-attack fighters could help augment the fighters that already conduct close-air support (CAS) missions in the Middle East, for instance the A-10, F-16 and F-15. The Air Force is currently planning to retire all of these legacy fleets, replacing the fourth-generation aircraft with the fifth-generation F-35 for CAS and other missions. However, critics argue that the F-35 can not do CAS as well as the beloved A-10, and divesting the Warthog fleet leaves soldiers on the ground more vulnerable to enemy fire.

As operations in the Middle East drag on, the Air Force must prepare to continue fighting the low-end fight for the foreseeable future. But at the same time, the service needs a fifth-generation fighter like the F-35 to keep up with the ever more sophisticated air defense systems in development by Russia and China. So how does the Air Force, in a tight fiscal environment, thread the needle?

The springtime experiment – while still not finalized – will help the Air Force address the full spectrum of threats, service spokesman Col. Patrick Ryder said.

“When Air Force leadership looks at the requirements that it is receiving from the combatant commands, it says, right, what do we have that can meet that need?” Ryder said Jan. 31 at the Pentagon. “Sometimes it’s going to make sense to use a high-end fighter to do what you need to do, but if we are going to be in these kinds of fights well into the future, is there a capability that could provide that close-air support, for example, or the search-and-rescue requirements, without being a high-end fighter like the F-35 or an F-15?”

At the same time, the Air Force must ensure its pilots are trained and ready for both the high and low-end fight, Ryder stressed.

The Air Force has provided few concrete details on what the experiment will involve. But Ryder offered some clarity, saying the service will likely invite select vendors to demonstrate how their off-the-shelf aircraft perform in a set of battlefield scenarios – for instance CAS, personnel recovery and air interdiction.

“When you look at the inventory of aircraft that we have, does it make sense to have an aircraft that could be less expensive but designed and capable for addressing the kinds of threats that you might face in a low-end fight?” Ryder said. “Right now you can use an F-16 and an F-15 or an F-35, certainly, to strike those targets, but if you are going to be in an extended, long-term low-end fight, does that make the most sense?”

“I want to have aircraft in my inventory that address that full spectrum – that’s really what that experiment will look at,” Ryder said.

The Air Force will provide more detail about the experiment in the coming weeks and months, he said.

[Guest]

Appears we will get some advice regarding operating the 2 types of F18s.

RCAF facing challenge of operating old and new fighter fleets at same time

Questions about how well new jets can share data with those of Canada's allies

By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Feb 02, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Feb 02, 2017 10:03 AM ET

A team of U.S. warplane experts has been invited to brief Canadian officials on what the Royal Canadian Air Force can expect when it takes delivery of a fleet of Super Hornet jets.

The briefing, expected to take place this week at the Canadian embassy in Washington, D.C., is crucial for the Liberal government as it grapples with introducing a new fighter jet into service and its impact on Canada's air defences.

The Trudeau government has begun talks with the Pentagon for a foreign military sale of 18 Super Hornets, at a cost of $5-$7 billion.

The Super Hornet is a larger, more advanced version of the CF-18, which the Liberal government hopes to replace entirely starting in the early 2020s.

"It's the same kind of jet with much different stuff connected to it," said Capt. Steve Boyle, wing commodore of the U.S Navy Strike Fighter Wing, Atlantic

CBC News had the opportunity to speak with U.S. Navy pilots and commanders last week about what the RCAF can expect operating different generations of what is arguably the same fighter.

It will take a CF-18 pilot about three months to learn to fly the new fighter, while training an entire squadron of pilots will take about six months — relatively short time frames, which is considered one of the advantages of the Super Hornets over the rival F-35.

"From the pilot's perspective, it's easy to fly a legacy Hornet [like a CF-18] in the morning and a Super Hornet in the afternoon," said Boeing executive Steve Brennan, who commanded the same fighter wing as Boyle over a decade ago.

The two aircraft have different maintenance needs but Brennan and other Boeing executives said the Super Hornet costs less to operate than any other tactical aircraft in the U.S. military.

Maintenance workers service a U.S. Navy Super Hornet. (CBC News/Murray Brewster)

Even so, there will be extra costs for the RCAF — an important point because the Trudeau government promised to properly fund the air force, something that did not happen under the previous Conservative government.

One of the pressing questions on the minds of Canadian defence officials is so-called interoperability with allies, mostly the Americans.

The U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Marine Corps and eventually the U.S,. Navy will all fly the advanced F-35 stealth fighter. So will many of Canada's other allies.

Data sharing

Many of the concerns relate to the ability of the F-35 to share electronic data and surveillance with older designs, such as the Super Hornet, said former Canadian chief of defence staff, retired general Tom Lawson.

"New aircraft like the F-35 come furnished with some residual ability to be interoperable with legacy aircraft such as the F-18 and other older fighters — a responsibility the designers of new systems share with those who maintain and upgrade older systems," said Lawson, a longtime supporter of the stealth fighter purchase who used to work for F-35 maker Lockheed Martin.

Equipment and software upgrades will be crucial for the jets to maintain "as much relevancy as possible," he said.

The issue of data sharing is crucial for the modern battlefield, said Ricardo Traven, a former Canadian fighter pilot, now working for Boeing.

A U.S. Navy flight line technician prepares a Super Hornet for flight.

The Super Hornet does have the ability to receive certain data and target imaging from the F-35 and the F-22 Raptor, but there is need for improvement.

Traven placed the onus on Lockheed Martin to ensure better protocols are developed, not only for other aircraft but for communication with ships and ground troops.

"It's always like trying to start a monopoly by saying: 'OK, the only way to communicate with us is if you are one of us,'" said Traven.

"The reality is, the whole world isn't going to be one of them." Traven says they're going to have to use common protocols with the rest of the world "or they're not going to be communicating with anyone."

Boyle said the U.S. Navy is also seized with the issue and has been pushing the Pentagon to ensure there is a solution because the Super Hornet is slated to keep operating with the navy, alongside the F-35, until at least 2040.

Tainted fighter debate

The previous Conservative government, under Stephen Harper, said the F-35 was the "best" choice to defend the country's sovereignty and fight in overseas missions.

The Liberals disagreed, and during the last federal election campaign promised to buy a "cheaper" aircraft and plow the savings back into rebuilding the navy — a plan Harper described as "living in a dream world."

The recent decision to wait until the early 2020s to fully replace the current fleet of CF-18s and to sole-source the purchase of up to 18 Super Hornets in the interim almost certainly means there will be no savings.

Proponents of the F-35 have argued the fighter is a generational leap forward in terms of technology and the ability to operate seamlessly with Canada's allies, and provides added protection because its stealth technology makes it less visible on enemy radar than so-called legacy fighters, such as the Super Hornet.

[Guest]

F-35 Dominates At Red Flag With 15:1 Kill Rate

Feb 6, 2017Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense ReportIN

 

F-35A at Red Flag in January: USAF

 

The U.S. Air Force’s F-35A made its debut at the toughest Red Flag yet, and not only dominated the air space but made the legacy aircraft in the force package even deadlier, according to pilots.

The F-35’s participation in the Air Force’s capstone training event at Nellis AFB, Nevada, which is known as one of the world’s most realistic and challenging air-to-air combat exercises, marked a crucial test for the fifth-generation fighter. This year, pilots went up against the most aggressive threat laydown ever seen at a Red Flag: more surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), more jamming, and more red air, said Lt. Col. George Watkins, 34th Fighter Squadron commander.
The exercise began Jan. 23 and will continue until Feb. 10.

Despite the stepped up threat, pilots lost only one F-35 to every 15 aggressors killed in action—an impressive kill ratio for an aircraft that is not designed as an air-to-air fighter.
Where before an F-16 would not even see the advanced threat on the battlespace—the blue forces would take them out ahead of time with standoff weapons—now with the F-35 added to the mix, pilots can detect and pinpoint multiple threats at once, Watkins said.

Faced with three or four different advanced SAMs in one scenario, F-35 pilots gather and fuse data from a multitude of sources. Then the stealthy aircraft slips undetected within range and takes out the threat. If the F-35 runs out of munitions, F-22 and fourth-generation pilots still want the aircraft to stay in the vicinity, vacuuming up targeting information and transferring it to the rest of the force.
“Before where we would have one advanced threat and we would put everything we had—F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, missiles, we would shoot everything we had at that one threat just to take it out—now we are seeing three or four of those threats at a time,” Watkins said. “Just between [the F-35] and the [F-22] Raptor we are able to geo-locate them, precision-target them, and then we are able to bring the fourth-generation assets in behind us after those threats are neutralized. It’s a whole different world out there for us now.”

The F-35 and the air superiority F-22, in particular, make a deadly team, the pilots said.
“When you pair the F-22and the F-35 like together with the fourth-generation strikers behind us, we’re really able to dominate the air space over the Nellis test and training range,” Watkins said.

Tug Caused Southwest Nose Gear Snap At BWI

 

As of Feb. 3, 13 F-35s from Hill AFB, Utah, had flown 126 missions and only lost three or four aircraft. They had not lost a single sortie to maintenance. Although there have been issues with the F-35’s 3i software load—the aircraft’s systems occasionally shut down and need to be rebooted and there were also problems with clutter and repeating targets—none of the aircraft at Red Flag have experienced any system failures. That is a huge improvement over the F-16s, Watkins said.

“It’s been pretty eye-watering here for me to go out every day and have every single mission system operating,” Watkins said. “Tie that sensor fusion and that situational awareness with the survivability of the platform [and] it’s really a game-changer.”
 

[Guest]

Good enough for the US Navy into 2040, perhaps we should forget the F35 and stick with the SuperHornet?

Boeing’s Souped-Up Super Hornet Adds Smart U.S. Navy Firepower

Feb 14, 2017Lara Seligman | Aviation Week & Space TechnologyIN

 

 

As President Donald Trump signals he may reconsider the mix of F-35Cs and F/A-18s for the carrier air wing of the 2020s and beyond, Boeing is pitching an upgraded “Block 3” Super Hornet designed to add firepower and act as a smart node on the U.S. Navy’s future network.  

While the service’s first F-35Cs will come online in 2018, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet will make up at least half of the carrier air wing through the 2040s. The challenge is to keep the Super Hornet, an airframe originally designed in the 1990s, relevant and effective against advanced threats into the middle of the century.  

BOEING’S LATEST ADVANCED SUPER HORNET PITCH

Secretary of Defense James Mattis is overseeing a review comparing F-35C and F/A-18 E/F

“Block 3” moves away from stealth, increases magazine depth

New design features conformal fuel tanks, long-range IRST, advanced computing

Will complement F-35C, E-2D and Growler

That issue is nothing new for Boeing, but the discussion about the next step for Super Hornet has shifted in the past few years. While the “Advanced Super Hornet” Boeing proposed in 2013 focused on stealth, the new and improved Block 3 is designed to optimize the Navy’s integrated network architecture, says Dan Gillian, Boeing F/A-18 and EA-18 program manager. 

The big question for the carrier air wing through the 2030s, says Gillian, is:  “How can the Super Hornet evolve in a complementary way with the E-2D [Hawkeye] and Growler to help address some of those carrier gaps?”

Boeing believes the Navy could detail a plan to procure the Super Hornet Block 3 as soon as the fiscal 2018 budget proposal, expected later this spring. A fiscal 2019 buy would mean Boeing could have aircraft off the production line in the early 2020s, Gillian notes. 

The revived conversation about the advanced Super Hornet is emerging just weeks after Trump made headlines by pitting the naval strike fighter against Lockheed Martin’s F-35. In a blow to Lockheed, he asked Boeing to price out the cost of building a “comparable” Super Hornet as a possible alternative to the F-35C carrier variant, and Secretary of Defense James Mattis has since ordered a review comparing the two aircraft.  

However, Gillian would not say definitively whether Block 3 could replace the F-35C in the carrier air wing. Boeing is focused on “complementary capability,” and ultimately the Navy will decide the right mix of each platform, he stresses.  

“We are supporting Block 3 as a key piece of solving the carrier air wing capability problem,” he says. “Our job is to present solutions to solve their warfighting problems.”

Gillian envisions a Block 3 Super Hornet working in tandem with the stealthy F-35C, Growler’s full-spectrum jammer and E-2D’s early-warning capability to dominate the skies. The addition of a long-range infrared sensor (IRST) will allow Block 3 to detect and track advanced threats from a distance, while conformal fuel tanks (CFT) will extend range by 100-120 nm. The CFTs are designed to replace the extra fuel tanks Super Hornets currently sling under the wing, reducing weight and drag and enabling additional payload. 

These changes allow a fully loaded Block 3 Super Hornet to operate in conjunction with a stealthy F-35, providing air cover and greater magazine depth.

“You can have an F-35 in its very stealthy way doing a deep-strike mission with Super Hornet providing air superiority at that same range, or you can have Super Hornet carrying large standoff weapons that F-35 cannot carry, with F-35 providing some air cover,” Gillian says. “You get very mission-flexible, so range is important.” 

Certain features of the 2013 proposal, such as the enclosed weapons pod and internal IRST sensor, were dropped from the 2016-17 package because Boeing’s analysis determined the Super Hornet was “stealthy enough”—it can fly full-up and still be survivable. Boeing engineers found they needed to make design compromises to significantly reduce the aircraft’s radar cross-section—for instance, by restricting payload. 

“At some point we drew a line that would allow us to be stealthy enough in a balanced survivable way to be effective, and that is what we think we have,” Gillian says. “The F-35 is a stealthier airplane, but we have a balanced approach to survivability, including electronic warfare and self-protection.”

Block 3 also features an advanced computing infrastructure designed to take advantage of the future carrier air wing’s sophisticated sensor architecture. The aircraft will have an advanced cockpit system with a large-area display for improved user interface, a more powerful computer called the Distributed Targeting Processor Network (DTPN), and a bigger data pipe for passing information known as Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT). TTNT is already a program of record for Growler and E-2D, and DTPN is also fielded on the Growler.

“You have your IRST sensor, you have other sensors in the carrier air wing, you need a big pipe to move that information around, then you need a big computer to be able to fuse all that information together,” Gillian says. “Block 3 Super Hornet needs to be a smart node on the network capable of crunching and passing data across the network to other assets.”

This advanced computing architecture ensures the Super Hornet, Growler and E-2D can talk to each other and pass critical threat data over the same network in combat. However, the F-35 is not on TTNT; rather it uses the smaller-bandwidth Link 16 network to pass and receive data from fourth-generation aircraft.

The result is that while the F-35C can communicate with the rest of the carrier air wing, passing large amounts of data may be more difficult.

While improving fifth-to-fourth generation connectivity is an ongoing discussion, “I think the question is: how does F-35 plug in with everybody else?” Gillian says. “If everybody else is on TTNT, there seems like an obvious answer there.”

The Navy could probably add TTNT to the F-35’s Link 16 functionality, but the fighter cannot broadcast on any Link 16 waveform without compromising its stealth, because Link 16 is not a low-probability-of-intercept waveform. The F-35 can pass large amounts of data to other F-35s via the stealthy Multifunction Advanced Data Link, which most other aircraft cannot currently access.

Another difference between the 2016 and 2013 offerings is that Boeing is offering to deliver a 9,000-hr. airplane straight off the production line, Gillian says. Combined with the company’s ongoing effort to extend the existing Super Hornets to 9,000 hr. from 6,500, this will help the Navy maintain inventory and boost readiness, he says.

Although the Navy has not publicly committed to Block 3, Gillian thinks the service is very interested in the capability.

“I believe there is a general acceptance of the fact that we need to advance the Super Hornet, because it is going to be a front-line fighter [from the] 2020s into the ’40s,” Gillian says. “We believe we have good alignment on the Block 3 Super Hornet systems that address key carrier air wing gaps in a complementary way with the F-35, E-2D and Growler.”

[DEFCON]

Flying missions in ideal wx conditions is one thing, but will the aircraft maintain its edge in winter weather ops; i.e., flight in clouds heavily laden with water, ice and snow?

Will the aircraft be lost to the enemy if it suffers some sort of technical glitch during combat ops? I've read that it's not much of a dogfighter.

Losing an F 16 to engine failure is costly for certain, but will small Country operators like Canada be able to afford losses for similar reasons?

  

 

[Guest]

Evidently the F35 is a thirsty beast, how do they compare with the fueling needs of the SuperHornet?

How Often Does The F-35 Need To Refuel?

Feb 14, 2017Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense ReportIN

 

 

A recent, lengthy journey by U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs traveling from Arizona to Japan has sparked a quiet debate within the Pentagon about how often the stealthy fighter needs to refuel during ocean crossings.

It took seven days for 10 U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs to fly from Yuma to their new home at Iwakuni, Japan, a flight that on a commercial airliner normally takes less than 24 hr. Many factors contribute to the time it takes a military fighter to get from point A to point B: weather, terrain and pilot fatigue, to name just a few. But on this particular voyage, the U.S. Air Force’s conservative refueling model required the Marine Corps aircraft to refuel with accompanying tankers a grand total of 250 times, a number the Marine Corps’ top aviator says is far too high for an efficient ocean-crossing.

“The airplane has got longer legs than an F-18 with drop tanks, so why are we going with the tanker so often? We don’t need to do that,” said Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, Marine Corps commandant for aviation. “We are tanking a lot more than we should, maybe double [what we should.] We could be a lot more efficient than that.”

While Davis says the tanking model for refueling the Joint Strike Fighter is “off in an overly conservative manner,” it is ultimately up to the Air Force to set the rules—and the air arm is not budging.

An often overlooked piece of the air logistics puzzle is tanker refueling, a critical enabler for operations around the world. Fighters are thirsty aircraft, and the F-35 is no exception, said Air Force spokesman Col. Chris Karns. During the Jan. 18-25 crossing to Iwakuni, nine tankers flew with the 10 F-35Bs, transferring a total of 766,000 lb. of fuel over 250 aerial refuelings, or 25 per F-35, according to Karns.

The Marine Corps does have tankers—the legacy KC-130s—but only Air Force tankers support fighter ocean crossings.

RELATED CONTENT

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Gains Steam Globally

F-35 Key To Securing NATO’s 'High North'

Lockheed Martin’s F-35: What Is Left To Fix?

Martin-Baker Requalifying F-35 Seat To Accommodate New Helmet

It comes as no surprise to Air Force Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus that the Marine Corps jets needed to refuel so many times during the crossing to Iwakuni. The Air Force sets up ocean crossings assuming the worst-case scenario, so that if any aircraft is not able to get fuel at any given time during the journey—whether due to weather or a technical malfunction—the entire group has enough gas to land safely, Pleus explained. For instance, the F-35Bs flew with their refueling probes out during the entire voyage, which significantly increases drag on the aircraft, to simulate a scenario in which the operator is not able to retract the probe.

“So when we plan these things we take the worst winds, we take the worst configuration of the airplane, and we say: at the worst time, what would happen?” said Pleus, a former F-16 pilot who now heads the Air Force’s F-35 integration office. “It is very conservative, and the reason why we’re so conservative is because it’s a life or death decision.”

Traditionally the Air Force refuels “almost continuously” when crossing a large body of water, as often as every 30 or 40 min., Pleus said. An F-35B, which carries 5,000 lb. less fuel than the Air Force F-35A, likely needs to hit the tanker even more often than that, he noted.

Pleus pushed back on Davis’ criticism, stressing that extending time between refuelings during an ocean crossing would mean more risk to pilots.

During a combat scenario, however, the Air Force would have a different calculus. Typically on a 6-hr. mission, a pilot would tank just two or three times, according to one Air Force official. It is important to top up before the mission because tankers are too vulnerable to fly alongside fighters during combat.

Fighters are often in the spotlight, but the tanker piece is equally important to national defense—without it, the F-35’s global reach is impossible, Karns emphasized

“The F-35 and projected future fighter and bomber requirements only reinforce the need for the next generation of tanker capability to ensure rapid global response across nine combatant commands in an environment where seconds and minutes matter,” Karns said. “As the fighter force increases, it is apparent that global tanker demand and potential future threats will drive an increase for the next generation of tankers.”

[Guest]

This article concludes:“The Super Hornet now appears to be one of the more solid aircraft programmes rather than on the brink of death,” says Richard Aboulafia, Teal Group vice president of strategy, speaking at the Pacific Northwest Aviation Alliance conference on 15 February.

 

US Navy revives interest in Super Hornet engine upgrades

• 15 February, 2017
• SOURCE: Flightglobal.com
• BY: Stephen Trimble
• Washington DC

The US Navy has revived interest in studying a major upgrade of the engine that powers the Boeing F/A-18E/F, EA-18G and two foreign fighters, including the possible addition of new technologies.

In early February, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) notified industry that it would ask GE Aviation to submit a proposal for a contract for the company’s engineers to perform a study on an “F414-GE-400 core enhancement evaluation”.

Such notifications are required when the government plans to award a contract without inviting competing bids. No other details about the contents or objectives of the study were provided in NAVAIR study, which is described only as an assessment of “how upgrades ... could improve engine performance, as well as F/A-18E/F and EA-18G performance”.

Asked to comment on the contract notification, GE released a statement to FlightGlobal that was approved by NAVAIR.

“NAVAIR has expressed interest in GE evaluating how our latest engine technologies could be applied to the F414 Enhanced Engine,” GE says.

GE’s proposed Enhanced Engine design surfaced as a proposal several years ago as part of Boeing’s Super Hornet bid for India’s fighter competition. GE has tested the durability or thrust upgrades in laboratory rigs. NAVAIR also paid GE in late 2013 to evaluate the F414 Enhanced Engine, with the possibility of funding a development programme two years later, although that follow-on contract never materialised.

“We believe this study would be an update of the previous work to include new technologies,” says GE, without elaborating.

A term in the title of the latest NAVAIR study — “core enhancement” — suggests the navy is focusing now on the three modules in the core of the engine, which include the high-pressure compressor, combustor and high-pressure turbine.

Any new technologies would come on top of GE’s proposals for the F414 Enhanced Engine. In the core section, these included 3D aerodynamic shaping of the compressor blades and an improved cooling system for the turbine blades. GE had previously considered inserting ceramic matrix composites in the turbine of the F414 Enhanced Engine, but as of early 2014 had resolved to continue using metallic alloy blades.

NAVAIR’s interest in upgrading the F/A-18E/F’s propulsion system comes after a remarkable turn-around for the Boeing production line in St. Louis. A year ago, the programme appeared to be close to winding down after completing remaining deliveries to the USN. Then, Boeing won long-sought deals to deliver at least 28 Super Hornets to Kuwait, 36 fighters to Qatar and a commitment from Canada to buy at least 18 F/A-18E/Fs. Moreover, US Defense secretary Jim Mattis said in late January that the F/A-18E/F could continue to be used as an internal competitor against the F-35.

“The Super Hornet now appears to be one of the more solid aircraft programmes rather than on the brink of death,” says Richard Aboulafia, Teal Group vice president of strategy, speaking at the Pacific Northwest Aviation Alliance conference on 15 February.

[Guest]

A new wrinkle for the F35c.

F-35C Needs New Outer Wings To Carry AIM-9X

Feb 17, 2017James Drew and Lara Seligman | Aerospace Daily & Defense ReportIN

 

 

The head of the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) says the outer wings of 32 carrier-based C-models need to be replaced to carry the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder, the aircraft’s primary dogfighting weapon.

The U.S. Navy variant experienced an undisclosed amount of oscillation or turbulence during flight trials with the AIM-9X in December 2015, and Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan says aircraft already delivered need to be retrofitted with strengthened wings.

“It was discovered the outer, folding portion of the wing has inadequate structural strength to support the loads induced by pylons with AIM-9X missiles during maneuvers that cause buffet,” Bogdan says in written testimony to Congress on Feb. 16.

Engineers have already produced an enhanced outer wing design, which is now undergoing flight testing. The issue has impacted the timeline for fielding AIM-9X, which is being rolled out for the Navy in Block 3F. “Once the new design is verified to provide the require strength, the fix will be implemented in production and retrofitted to existing aircraft by swapping existing outer wings with the redesigned ones,” Bogdan writes.

The AIM-9X is the heat-seeking sidekick to the Raytheon AIM-120C advanced medium-range air-to-air missile. Without it, the F-35 would be incapable of high off-boresight shots at close range. Because of a seven-year schedule delay, the fifth-generation fighter will carry air superiority missiles that are one generation behind its legacy counterparts, which are already carrying the newest AIM-9X Block II and AIM-120D.

Various problems discovered during developmental testing of AIM-9X have already delayed the weapon’s expected fleet-wide rollout by one month, shifting from October to November 2017. The missile must be delivered in time to support initial operational test and evaluation and complete the 17-year F-35 system development and demonstration phase by May 2018. The Navy, in particular, must be cleared to fly and shoot the AIM-9X to declare combat-ready status with its first squadron of F-35C Block 3F aircraft in 2018.

Another task for the F-35 team is adding a moving target capability, as reported by Aviation Week on Feb. 15. There are currently no plans to install weapons capable of hitting moving and maneuvering targets, such as an insurgent driving away in a pickup truck. These types of weapons were designed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and can hit targets traveling at speeds of up to at 70 mph. They are now making their mark in the air campaign against the Islamic State group. Because the F-35’s laser designator cannot lead the target, its basic inventory of late-1990s guided bombs will fall short if that target moves briskly.

The JPO is now working with the U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps to integrate Raytheon’s GBU-49 Lot 5 Enhanced Paveway II, which automatically corrects for target speed and direction as well as wind conditions. The Marines have expressed a preference for the Raytheon GBU-53B Small Diameter Bomb Increment II, but that is not slated for full integration and flight clearance until Block 4.2, around fiscal 2022 or later. It is not clear if GBU-49 will be automatically selected for F-35 or competed against the latest Boeing Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition and Lockheed Dual Mode Plus. Whatever the decision, it cannot delay F-35 Block 3F.

“I’m working to figure out how we can fit that in sooner rather than later, whether it becomes part of Block 3F or if it gets done at the tail end of 3F,” Bogdan told reporters after the congressional hearing. “The big deal there is to get it done before the middle of Block 4, when we get the moving target capability.”

Bogdan says the F-35 was originally due to be fielded with a cluster bomb that could hit moving targets, the CBU-103 Wind Corrected Munition Dispenser. But the Pentagon has pledged to stop using cluster munitions that leave unexploded ordnance by 2018.

GBU-49 can operate through poor visibility but is not an all-weather weapon. “SDB II is the weapon we all want, and that’s an all-weather moving target [glide bomb],” says Lt. Gen. Jon Davis, deputy commandant for Marine Corps aviation.