F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[dapaterson]

$9B is $9B - if it falls within that budget then any combination of platforms shouldn't be an issue.

To use the Australian purchase as a reference point, though, wouldn't we have to spend MORE than $9B to get the same number of Super Hornets (65) along with training and support over 10 years? Their purchase of 24 Super Hornets cost US$4.6B back in 2007.

Depends on how you do the accounting.  Different militaries have different standards, so you need to dig in depth to ensure you're comparing properly.

 

[Journeyman]

Mr. Marc Garneau (Westmount—Ville-Marie, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, the government has bungled the CF-18 replacement right from the beginning. Will it now do the right thing, which is: first, define a statement of requirements based on our objectives from a defence and foreign policy point of view; second, hold an open and transparent competition; and third, choose the best aircraft based on performance, cost, industrial benefits and, I need to add, availability? In other words, do what the Liberals did 30 years ago when we chose the CF-18.

At least the Honourable Member from Westmount--Ville-Marie seems to have understood my posts....

 

[Haletown]

The AGM-88E AARGM is a medium-range air-to-ground missile employed for Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD).  It is designed to be compatible with the internal weapons bay of the F-35.  It is in production and has met all objectives.  It can currently be carried on the external weapons pylons of the F/A-18C/D, FA-18E/F, EA-18G as well as the Tornado IDS.

Source -> http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.display&key=AF4153AA-5454-44D2-B01A-AA69417C5B49

Not sure if they have this one right.  The F-35  internal weapons bay has a restriction on weapons size of 7 inches  . . .  this puppy is the traditional HARM sized 10 incher

This advanced new version of the HARM might be for external carriage.

I think the  internal mounted anti radiation missile for the F-35  is still in development.  There was a good article a while back  . . I'll see if I can find it.

Proving once again, size matters.

 

[Kirkhill]

Auchentoshan here I come....

JM quoting a Liberal.  What next? D&B citing Paddy Ashdown?

 

[Journeyman]

JM quoting a Liberal.  What next? D&B citing Paddy Ashdown?

I merely quoted the post by milnews.ca....that featured a Liberal quoting me.  ;D


.....and I thought that the Paddy Ashdown spiel was pretty well done, although it ended lamely.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Auchentoshan here I come....

JM quoting a Liberal.  What next? D&B citing Paddy Ashdown?

The world is not coming to an end - it was only to suggest JM has been correct all along

 

[Kirkhill]

The world is not coming to an end - it was only to suggest JM has been correct all along

Shhh... Don't tell him that.  Those people that fall out of areoplanethingamijigs have got big enough heads as it is.  ;D

 

[WingsofFury]

Not sure if they have this one right.  The F-35  internal weapons bay has a restriction on weapons size of 7 inches  . . .  this puppy is the traditional HARM sized 10 incher

This advanced new version of the HARM might be for external carriage.

I think the  internal mounted anti radiation missile for the F-35  is still in development.  There was a good article a while back  . . I'll see if I can find it.

Proving once again, size matters.

They didn't...I did.  Should have read a bit more.

A long term goal of the AARGM program is the development of an entirely new stealthy airframe, compatible with the internal weapon bays of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II.

Link -> http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Raytheon_%28Texas_Instruments%29_AGM-88_HARM  (This page was last modified on 2 July 2011, at 10:44.)

 

[Haletown]

FYI . . .

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/plan-b/1511112942001

 

[54/102 CEF]

With Airforce pundits like this we won't be changing political mindsets any time soon

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Buying+fighter+makes+sense+Canada/6320351/story.html

I made a few comments on the attachment

 

[WingsofFury]

There's already a full thread in the AF sub forum about the F-35 - would suggest you read it and see some of the POV's of those who know a lot, a bit, and not much regarding fast air.

Here's the link -> http://forums.air-force.ca/forums/threads/22809.0.html

 

[54/102 CEF]

The brainy fliers we have can read and spread the news as required

My point was - Disinformed and unformed commentary by "Not for Profit" agencies (as in someone is funding them) needs to be challenged

Thanks for your pointers to the cast archive though!

 

[Good2Golf]

This is extracted from Ivision's story, above: [article link added for this post]

The department has a similarly long-standing predisposition for bamboozling its political masters. Previous Auditor-General reports in 2006 and 2010 have blasted DND for deliberately low-balling costs, in order to get the kit it wants. Two years ago, Sheila Fraser concluded National Defence knew the Chinook heavy lift helicopter it wanted to buy was not an “off the shelf” model, with a relatively low risk of cost and time overruns. Yet the department did not reveal this to Treasury Board when it sought project approval. As a result, the cost of the 15 Chinooks more than doubled to $4.9-billion and the helicopters still have not been delivered.

A similar story accompanied the purchase of 28 maritime helicopters, according to Ms. Fraser, who lamented the gaps in the fullness of information supplied to MPs. “[DND] under-estimated and under-stated the complexity and developmental nature of the helicopters it intended to buy,” she said.

Fraser fired a pretty stern warning shot across DND's bows; misleading parliament is, just about, the most serious "crime" a senior public servant can commit; if cabinet concludes that it, too, was misled then, I expect to see heads (CAS? ADM (Mat)? even higher up the food chain?) roll. Equally, if cabinet concludes that it was misled it will have a perfect excuse to save a whole piss-pot full of near term money by telling DND to find a way to further life extend the CF-18 (OK, so it's impossible - trust me, cabinet will not listen to that argument) while the government, not just DND or the CF, completely rethinks why we have high performance fighter jets.

Mr. Campbell, of course one must take care in depending too greatly on what the media presents to the public as 'fact', as opposed to citizens informing themselves to form a validated personal opinion, particularly when the selection of words from others (i.e. from Ms. Fraser in her fall 2010 report regarding the Chinook helicopter procurement ( Auditor General's Report - Fall 2010 - Chapter 6 - Acquisition of Military Helicopters - Medium to Heavy-Lift Helicopter Chinook ) is often made so as to add drama ('more than doubled') to the otherwise relatively un-dramatic (increasing 14%).

Case in point, I believe Mr. Ivison uses the Chinook in his article to add a dramatic flavour of 'here we go again' to the JSF issue.  He writes his interpretation of a small portion of the information in Ms. Fraser's report, specifically that "...the cost of the 15 Chinooks more than doubled to $4.9-billion..."  What Mr. Ivison does not point out in his article is that the original 2006 figure of $2.022B compared to the 2009 figure of $4.886B included only capital acquisition costs, not in-service support costs - thus there is no qualified basis to describe costs as "more than double."

Ms. Fraser's report was quite clear, however, specifically paragraph 6.48 (see link above), that the later 2009 figure included both (highlights added to applicable wording): "In 2006, at the preliminary project approval stage, total indicative costs for the acquisition of 16 medium- to heavy-lift helicopters were estimated at $2 billion, exclusive of long-term in-service support. The cost of purchasing and providing in-service support for 15 helicopters, and of training personnel, is currently estimated to be $4.9 billion over 20 years..."

The financial chart identified as Exhibit 6.6 in Ms. Fraser's report more clearly details the cost breakdown, but  if one were to compare "apples to apples" (i.e. capital acquisition costs), the 2006 $2.022B compared to the 2009 $2.313B indicates a 14.4% increase [not bad, BTW, going from indicative estimates to substantive costings].  An interesting detail noted by Ms. Fraser that gets very little note in any media piece, however, is that back in 2006, DND estimated to Cabinet that the entire project would cost $6.9 billion (see para 6.67 of the report) -- or DND's final approved costs ($4.886B) were approximately $2 billion less than originally estimated and identified to cabinet. 

While the above information is Chinook-specific, if was deliberately included by mainstream media to the current JSF / F-35 coverage and the similarities in much of the media's treatment of large capital acquisition projects leaves me, and perhaps others, wanting.  I believe there is a case to be made for individuals to apply critical thinking to an issue that they are going to hold as a strong personal position. 

Myself, I put little stock in any kind of 'analysis' provided by pundit-type journalists regarding the F-35 -- I see mostly a continual rehashing and thrashing of figures, often taken out of context. 

I'll wait for the AG's report on this one.

Mein  :2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Edward Campbell]

Except that Ms. Fraser was plowing old ground ... I well remember, because I worked near the  very top of the Mat Group in the 1980s, that we were taken to the woodshed over how we presented the costs for the CF-18. Before that I recall similar troubles over the CP-140 acquisition and lest anyone think it was an air staff problem we were "guilty" of either lowballing or, more often, creative accounting (by covering costs in several 'separate' projects) on the frigate programme, TRUMP (the DDH 280 rebuild) and TCCCS, to name just a few.
 

 

[Haletown]

The most common Apples:Oranges comparison presented as Apples:Apples is the DND cost vs the PBO cost.  They don't seem to get that 10 more years of Operations and two major refits difference makes the two estimates not comparable .

Mr Ivison dropped it in his article as well.

 

[GAP]

Silicon All The Way
March 20, 2012
Article Link

The U.S. Navy wants its new carrier based UAVs to understand the hand signals deck crews use to direct pilots of aircraft around the flight deck. This is because, as the U.S. Navy hustles to ready its X-47B for carrier landings, attention has also been paid to how deck crew would communicate with the UAV once it had landed. Currently, UAVs like this are moved around the landing area by their remote operators. For the U.S. Air Force, this involves a local operator, not the ones, based in the U.S. that operates these UAVs remotely via a satellite link. While the navy could go with a hand held device (like a video game controller) it would be simpler if there were pattern recognition software for one of the X-47Bs cameras that would recognize and interpret the deck crew hand signals.

The X-47B will begin landing on, and taking off from, carriers next year. Take-offs are relatively easy. The hard part is landing. Software has already been developed for this, and last year a manned carrier aircraft (an F-18), using the X-47B automated landing software, successfully landed on a carrier. Actually, this kind of software has been in development for over a decade, to make it easier for human pilots to land on carriers (the most difficult type of landing). It was not a major leap to make this software even more powerful and reliable. When the X-47Bs begin landing on carriers, it will be silicon all the way.

The U.S. Navy believes they need unmanned combat aircraft (UCAS, or Unmanned Combat Air System) on their carriers as soon as possible. The current plan is to get these aircraft into service six years from now. But there is an effort to get the unmanned carrier aircraft into service sooner than that. A major reason for this is the realization that American carriers currently have to get within 800 kilometers of their target before launching bomber aircraft. Potential enemies increasingly have aircraft and missiles with range greater than 800 kilometers. The navy already has a solution in development; the X-47B UCAS has a range of 2,500 kilometers

Last year the U.S. Navy leadership also ordered naval aviation commanders to examine the possibility of reducing orders for the new F-35B and F-35C manned aircraft, and use that money to buy the new X-47B, and similar robotic combat aircraft. The navy currently plans to buy 680 F-35B and F-35C aircraft for (on average) $100 million each. A UCAS (Unmanned Combat Aerial System) costs less than half that, and provides most of the same capabilities, plus much longer range.

For most of the last decade, the navy has been hustling to ready a UCAS for carrier operations and combat use. Within four years, the navy expects to have the X-47B demonstrating the ability to regularly operate from a carrier and perform combat (including reconnaissance and surveillance) operations. The new efforts aim to have UCAS aircraft perform ground attack missions as well, something the Predators have been doing for over a decade. The larger Reaper UAV was designed to expand this combat capability, and is being built as quickly as possible to replace F-16s and other bombers in the combat zone.
More on link

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/19/john-ivison-f-35-bid-process-was-hijacked-by-dnd-former-official-says/

We know that the new Auditor-General, Michael Ferguson, is going to turn his attention to the purchase of the troubled F-35 fighter aircraft in his first report early next month. We suspect he is going to be unhappy that the military insisted on buying the fighter plane Holt Renfrew would sell, when it could have bought one cut-price from The Bay.

We don’t know precisely the nature of his criticism — and his office isn’t saying. But a conversation with the man who inked the initial deal on the F-35 project, as a senior official with the Department of National Defence, offers some clues about the nature of the Hadron Collider of censure that is likely coming down on the heads of the senior soldiers, bureaucrats and Conservative politicians involved in the saga.

Alan Williams is a retired assistant deputy minister, responsible for procurement at DND in the early years of the F-35 project, and recently he shared his thoughts on the shortcomings of the tendering process with the Office of the Auditor-General.“The whole process was twisted to suit the needs of the military, with the acknowledgment and support of ministers. It was totally unacceptable,” he said.

He thinks the government should write a new statement of requirement and put the whole project out to an open competition.

“You could run a competition today and have it done within two years,” he said. “You’d have to be blind and deaf not to know how much this project has gone off the rails.”

He said that in his experience, maintenance costs on sophisticated military equipment run at two to three times acquisition costs. He believes the eventual cost to taxpayers for the F-35s is likely to be $25- to $30-billion — double the current government estimate.

The 33-year public servant has no skin in this game, no clients, no political allegiances. “The only reason I’m doing this is to set the record straight and tell Canadians they’ve been misled,” he said. “The [F-35 purchase] process was completely hijacked and bastardized.”

In theory, the defence procurement process is simple — the military sets its requirements and then the procurement experts find the product that best meets those requirements.

However, in the case of the F-35, Mr. Williams said, the military “wired the specs” — that is, chose the plane it wanted and made sure none of the other contending planes met the requirements. “What you do is simply include a couple of mandatory criteria that only one product can deliver. Then you can sole source without saying you sole sourced,” he said. Both the civilians running the procurement process after Mr. Williams left DND and successive Conservative ministers have gone along with the military.

The government has stuck to its line that the contract has been tendered; that Canadian companies are profiting from industrial benefits; that our allies have the F-35, so we need it too; and that it’s the best aircraft available.

Mr. Williams said every one of those arguments is flawed. For example, more industrial and regional benefits (IRBs) would accrue to Canadian companies from an open competition. “All bidders would have to provide IRBs equal to, or greater than, the value of the contract,” he said.

He has never downplayed the technical capabilities of the F-35, he said, but suggested we have sole sourced a plane without knowing what it can do or what it will cost to buy and maintain.

The F-35 experience does suggest a process that is out of control. And we know that it is not an isolated incident. Mr. Williams said that former Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, once indicated to him that he wanted Chinook heavy lift helicopters. “I said to him, ‘don’t tell me that you want Chinooks, tell me your requirements’. Almost the day I left, they ordered Chinooks,” he said. These are the same Chinooks that are at least three years behind schedule and 100% over budget — the aircraft where former auditor-general Sheila Fraser said the deliberate understatement of risk by DND was “totally unacceptable.”

Mr. Williams is outraged that the government wants to spend $30-billion of taxpayers’ money without even publishing the statement of requirement, which says what the air force needs and why it needs it. “It is unacceptable for any government not to share this information,” he said.

The whole F-35 saga reads like an episode of Yes, Minister, where the politicians pirouette to the tune played by the bureaucrats. Peter MacKay, the Defence Minister, was once asked how he knew the F-35 is the best aircraft available. The response was he read it in briefing notes provided by DND. Of course he did. The word on defence policy comes from Defence Department headquarters and it is home-made. Let’s hope the Auditor-General reminds the uniforms who pays the bills.

National Post

I realize Williams is one of "The Usual Suspects" on the subject, but surely the Hadron Collider comment is an overstatement?

 

[MarkOttawa]

US GAO report, March 20:

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Restructuring Added Resources and Reduced Risk, but Concurrency Is Still a Major Concern
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/riwQoL4nzgio

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

However, in the case of the F-35, Mr. Williams said, the military “wired the specs” — that is, chose the plane it wanted and made sure none of the other contending planes met the requirements. “What you do is simply include a couple of mandatory criteria that only one product can deliver. Then you can sole source without saying you sole sourced,” he said. Both the civilians running the procurement process after Mr. Williams left DND and successive Conservative ministers have gone along with the military.

Why was the JSF program acceptable to Williams and the Liberal Government in 2002, yet isn't now?  Remember that Mr. Williams was the Defence Associate Deputy Minister (Materiel) who actually went to Washington in 2002 and signed as the Canadian Government's official representative to commit Canada to the JSF program. (see p.19 of the JSF MOU)

It's interesting to look at Mr. Williams' words regarding the Canadaian Government's position on JSF: (Link: official DoD transcript of the JSF signing ceremony)

Williams: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you Pete for your earlier remarks.

I too really value our personal friendship and the opportunity we have had over the last many months to work together on a number of issues. I look forward to building on this personal relationship in the future.

It's with great pleasure that I formally announce today Canada's participation with the United States and Great Britain in the systems development and demonstration phase of the Joint Strike Fighter program. Canada's decision to participate in the JSF program is yet another clear demonstration of the Canadian government's continuing commitment to North American security and industrial cooperation.

Participation in this internationally oriented technologically advanced program will assist us in our efforts to enhance interoperability with the U.S. and allies and provide us with a unique window into the leading edge technologies being developed for this world class weapon system.

In addition, Canadian industry will have an opportunity to provide its expertise to this important program. Through its ability to make a value-added contribution and its highly competitive position, Canadian industry will assist the U.S. prime contractors in their efforts to deliver a technologically advanced but affordable aircraft to the U.S. Department of Defense and allies.

In closing let me reiterate again how pleased I am to be working both with Pete Aldridge and Sir Robert Wolmsley on this important, innovative and forward-looking defense program.

Thank you very much.

The post-ceremony statements then were followed with a short Q & A period, and here is what Mr. Williams had to say to a number of pertinent questions (from the same transcripts as linked to above):

Q: What's the figure that you have for the expected Canadian spin-off as a result of industrial --

Williams: I don't have an expected figure. We went into this project with our industry recognizing that a key cornerstone of the success of this program is value added. May the best survive. We have told our industry that what we're doing for you as the Canadian government is giving you the opportunity to compete. We have talked a great deal with our industry, our industry has had significant discussions, over 60-some companies, with Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman and others, and they feel very comfortable that they'll be able to do a great deal of the work cost effectively and provide value added to the program.

So we are not demanding, we are not insisting upon any special kind of privilege. The fact is we are in early. And that has advantages. Our companies will now be able to aggressively pursue opportunities and we expect they'll be successful in many of them.

Q: Can you give us a ball park figure of the economic and industrial benefits of the program for Canada?

Williams: There is a great deal of potential, depending on how successful industry is. I will say this. That when we talk in the short and medium term we're certainly talking in this phase, potentially up to 3500 to 5000 jobs we think. As you extrapolate that well into the future, the potential is enormous for maybe 60-plus thousand jobs. That again depends on how successful we are. But we're fairly comfortable that the economic impact in terms of jobs for Canada and Canadians is dramatic.

So Mr. William's no longer believes that the program will achieve for the Canadian aerospace industry what he said it would back in 2002?      ???


It would be very interesting to hear the media ask Mr. Williams specifically what has changed since 2002 for him to go from being an ardent proponent of the JSF to a vocal critic...


Regards
G2G

 

[The Bread Guy]

Why was the JSF program acceptable to Williams and the Liberal Government in 2002, yet isn't now?  Remember that Mr. Williams was the Defence Associate Deputy Minister (Materiel) who actually went to Washington in 2002 and signed as the Canadian Government's official representative to commit Canada to the JSF program. (see p.19 of the JSF MOU)

It's interesting to look at Mr. Williams' words regarding the Canadaian Government's position on JSF: (Link: official DoD transcript of the JSF signing ceremony) ....

:goodpost:

Another reason to come to Army.ca to get the REST of the story ....