Now this would be funny

[terrym]

After having campaigned on promising "not" to buy F-35's no matter what, it looks like the Libranos may actually be quietly looking at them. Turns out they are exactly what most people are planning to fly in the Arctic. Too funny.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/defence-minister-backs-off-liberals-campaign-promise-of-refusing-to-buy-expensive-f-35-jets

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/matthew-fisher-lower-cost-may-put-f-35s-on-radar-for-liberals-defence-strategy

[mosquito]

They will buy time it seems rather than admit an error... then try and convince people it was their idea in the first place probably

Canada to defer modernisation spending until 2020 or later

http://www.janes.com/article/59024/canada-to-defer-modernisation-spending-until-2020-or-later


It should be interesting how the review comes out too...

http://www.janes.com/article/59367/c...-policy-review
Canadian DND outlines major Defence Policy Review

[DGearyFTE]

Acquisition of this type is very complex. I wish it was not, but there is faint hope that it will get easier.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Recall that Chretien cancelled the EH101 helicopter project in 1993 at a cost of $780 million to taxpayers for breach of contract (this was the direct payout that did not include the other sub-contractors, all tolled it was over $1B). Canadians (and the Air Force) are still waiting for the replacement helicopter (CH148 Cyclone). Canada has already invested heavily in the F-35 program in order to have guarantees to Canadian industry to supply parts and service to all fleet - not just Canadian.
As I recall, Canada has to date spent some $500 million to F-35 program so if JT decides to do a Chretien then this money is lost. Moreover there is the unknown cost to Canadian companies that will loose existing contracts and future opportunities. The hard part for most people to digest is that the numbers they keep floating around have to be viewed with the utmost care. The most common error is to think the $40 billion price tag is the cost of the aircraft. This estimate is all of it to support this weapon system for +20 yrs to include fuel, parts, spares, training, infrastructure and salaries for the pilots and technicians. This is just the high level program cost as there are obviously other elements.
I find it interesting that fuel, parts, spares, training, infrastructure and salaries for the pilots and technicians are fixed costs for any fleet whether its the existing F-18s or new ones or F-35s. So depending on how you ask the question, costs are going to be a different dollar value.
I spent 3 months in Patuxent River where they are testing the F-35 and as such I have some insight into the program. As with any complex weapon system there are teething problems, in this case mostly because this aircraft has to be so many things to so many partners in addition to the USAF and USN.
My previous job was Flight Test Lead for the CH148 Cyclone mission system. One could say I am acquainted with the procurement process for the Air Force and the complexities imposed.

[JBen]

A few years ago there was a member that used to post infrequently. Won't go into to many details, but he was somewhat knowledgeable on things related to the airforce. He doesn't post here anymore but I have him on FB and still occasionally see the odd post.

Long story short, back in the day when the F35s we being bandied and discussed, I recall asking him if they could serve in the arctic, had the range etc, etc. I don't recall everything he had to say about them or the procurement process, contracts etc, but he felt they'd be a suitable option.

[terrym]

DG-FTE, Given your background, what is your opinion of the F35? Not the politics but it's usefulness to Canada given that it will be around for 40 years and likely used in the Arctic more and more.

[DGearyFTE]

I think in the near the F-35 is a bit of an over purchase (it will pretty much defeat any non-Western aircraft in the sky) in the current threat environment but given successive government's lack of consistent support to the military; buying something that has growth potential is essential since it will still be flying 45 yrs after they are purchased. Recall the current F-18 fleet was acquired in 1980 and will be still in service beyond 2025.
There was a school of thought on dual engines decades ago wrt single engine aircraft in the Arctic but reliability rates support a single engine design. Recall that the DC-3 was originally specified to have 3 engines until they proved that two would meet the requirement.
As for performance in Arctic operations, the specification standards already mandate operation to -50C as a demonstrated capability and this will be no different. Remember that it is always about -50C when you are flying about 40,000 ft and above.
The low observable technology (sometimes referred to as stealth) is essential. Reducing your signature (radar or IR) makes it harder for the bad guy to see you and when he does see you it makes it easier for your own onboard countermeasures to be effective. (I also was a Chief Instructor Advance Electronic Warfare Course, so I am acquainted with this area as well).

The real advantage is buying into a fleet that everyone operates (tangible elements that taxpayers can appreciate).

1. As part of the agreement, if Canada is operating in an area where other countries have F-35 they will be able to draw on their supply system vs having it shipped in theatre from Canada = huge operational savings!
2. With the same airframe operated by multiple nations Canada will enjoy an economy of scale that will help reduce the costs for spares and upgrades = huge operational saving!
3. This also helps to reduce Lead Time for delivery of spares and component. I deal with the orphan situation routinely. Because RCAF aircraft fleets are so small and more often than not orphan designs the vendors get to charge what they want and deliver it when the get around to it. Did I mention that this save money?
4. Acquisition (that actual cost of buying a weapon system is only about 10% of the overall cost of ownership) - Operations and maintenance are 70% of the cost so it should be too hard to figure out where to buy if you are looking to own something that is not an orphan, is operated by many users, will be supported for a long period by industry and provides a country entry level partnership to a very advanced design. Just so ya know, this also saves money!

Pretty sure the aerospace industry in Canada didn't vote Liberal since they stand to lose a significant amount of money, experience and sustained growth.

[mosquito]

The closest thing to an aviation industry in Canada of any size now is Bombardier and CAE.

Maybe the Liberals will buy used ones to save money...... by the time they get around to anything the F-X fighters will be in prototype or initial production possibly.

http://www.janes.com/article/56675/n...x-technologies
Northrop Grumman unveiled its vision for a next-generation US combat aircraft on 11 December, showing reporters at its Palmdale facility in California a cross between its US Air Force (USAF) B-2 Spirit bomber design and its X-47B unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) developed for the US Navy (USN).

Artists' renderings of the sixth-generation aircraft depict a stealthy air vehicle employing a laser weapon against multiple targets.

The USAF's F-X programme would develop aircraft to replace the Boeing F-15 Eagle, the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, and, eventually, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter now in production. The USN's F/A-XX, meanwhile, would replace the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...he-skies-12613

According to some industry insiders with deep knowledge of both the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter and the Super Hornet, neither jet can adequately handle new threats like the Chinese Chengdu J-20 or the Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA. The Chinese J-20 is particularly threatening, according to one senior industry official with an extensive fighter pilot background.

[DGearyFTE]

Let me serve up the counterpoint! This actually happened but I will hide some of the details in order to not embarrass anyone or party.
A certain long in-service aircraft fleet equipped with a radar ran into supply issues trying to find azimuth drive motors for the radar antenna (the motor makes the antenna turn - typically considered important).
This motor is a 28 Volt DC motor about the size of a D-Cell battery. The Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) had long since gone out of business since the radar was fit to the aircraft in 1972.
The call goes out to the world for any manufacturer that might be able to supply this motor. No one takes the contract offer. After more waiting and calling the team found an obscure company in Kansas that said they could provide the motor. If a copy of the original motor was supplied to them they would reverse engineer it and supply it back to Canada.

The cost?

The minimum order was 100 units and for the first 100 only $40,000 USD each. Yup, that would be $400,000 USD for replacement parts where the fleet will never use close to 100 units that will sit on the shelf and be disposed of when the fleet retires. Of course the alternative is to simply install a whole new radar system at $1,000,000 per aircraft.

So, when considering weapons systems purchase the most important element to consider is cost and ease of keeping it working. (Yes, there is an element of effectiveness that has to be high on the list but it goes in hand with sustainability)

This is just one small example of what the Canadian military faces routinely, its called 'fleet rust out', a term used universally to indicate that not enough money is available to avoid obsolesence or provide necessary upgrades in a timely and economical manner.

The recent decision to put all major defence spending on hold does not in reality save money. It forces situations as described above to multipy across the military and results in hurried decisions that are politically driven and not capability driven.

[mosquito]

There is also the issue of procurement of munitions for the military equipment. The Upholder subs the Liberals bought couldn't even fire the torpedoes we had with out a complete retrofit and years out of service. In this case it was like buying a beat up used rifle and then having to re-bore it for a round you can find... not the wisest financial decision. The subs for example with retrofits etc. could have been replaced with 2 or 3 new subs that would have parts available, better technology and been able to work shortly after purchase and probably wouldn't have killed a sailor before they were even delivered.

The age and reliability come into question, the SeaKing is still listed as an active aircraft and are probably twice as old as the pilots flying them. The cost of maintaining and possibly any required retrofits ... you know, modern things like GPS... are probably quite a shocking number to many people. People tend to look at only the purchase price or up front price, things like support and parts are ignored... sort of like Canada's debt, the interest payments each year ARE about $20B and will be about $30B in a few years under the Liberals.
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/aircraft.page

Some interesting news on Canada.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/?s=canada