F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Kirkhill]

Weapons/Ammunition: Weapons currently in the Canadian Armed Forces inventory that can be employed on the F-35A fleet will be retained. In the case of the F-35A, the project acquisition cost estimate provides for the acquisition of an initial stock of gun ammunition and countermeasures (e.g., flares), as the existing stock of CF-18 gun ammunition and flares are incompatible with the F-35A. Over the life cycle of the replacement fleet, the acquisition of newer weapons will be considered and funded as separate projects.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports-rapports/ngfc-cng/index-eng.asp#3i

Ammunition according to KPMG, DND and the Secretariat.

Ammunition that is unique to the aircraft will be procured for the aircraft.  Ammunition that hangs from the aircraft is considered separately.  Existing ammunition will be used and/or replaced when and as necessary.  New munitions will be purchased just the way they are now:  as separate projects.  The NGF does not predict the likelihood of acquiring air dropped hovering sharks with lasers in 2040.

In other words, ammunition is generally treated like pilots and runways.  We have them now.  We will continue to have them.  The aircraft the pilots fly, the aircraft the runways receive, the aircraft that transport the ammunition will change.  All else will stay the same.

Submariner's sub might be replaced but he, his torpedoes and his home port will remain unchanged.

Edit (Further thought):  Submariner may be issued Harpoons at some point in the future.  Equally those Harpoons could be added to ammunition carried by the F35.  Those projects would be funded separately.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I've often seen the comment pop up that the F35 only has one engine.  Is that really a huge issue? I mean if your only engine breaks you're obviously going to have to climb out on the airframe and fix it in a hurry but is there a valid history of one out of the two engines on CF18s (or other dual engine jets)  going down while in the air? Or the single engines on F16s breaking?

 

[dapaterson]

Back in the 70s, the "We need two engines" camp was almost (but not entirely) driven by folks who were afraid the CF would go for the F-16 as a less expensive option, when the real desire was for the F-15.

Thus the "One engine is dangerous!" group was formed.  When the CF was offered slightly used F-14s there was a flurry to identify reasons why that particular two-engine plane wasn't right.  When the replacement fighter secretariat (sound familiar?) made its final choice, they got their two engines - but not on the airframe they wanted.


Not that history repeats itself, but if you do a poor job of defining requirements you risk someone taking a throwaway requirement and using it to demonstrate why you're getting something other than what you wanted...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

There appears to no longer be a statistically significant difference in loss rates of 1 engine fighters vs 2 engine fighters.

It has been argued by some that two engines just increase cost and weight.  :dunno:

 

[Haletown]

Number of engines is a well known, quantifiable, manageable risk that can be handled by proper ILS analysis and Maintenance protocols and procedures.

Really not a significant factor outside of the media hubbub & self repeating circus of pundits.

Norway has been operating single engine F-16s for decades in austere northern flying environments.  If they can do it, so can the RCAF.

 

[Journeyman]

Norway has been operating single engine F-16s for decades in austere northern flying environments.  If they can do it, so can the RCAF.

Careful; you'll scuttle the sacred cow and have us buying F-16s.   

 

[Good2Golf]

Also keep in mind that munitions are most often procured as 'Government Furnished Equipment' (GFE) through a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case with the U.S. DoS/DoD and thus not subject to any IRB requirements.

Regards
G2G

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Submariner's sub might be replaced but he, his torpedoes and his home port will remain unchanged.

Edit (Further thought):  Submariner may be issued Harpoons at some point in the future.  Equally those Harpoons could be added to ammunition carried by the F35.  Those projects would be funded separately.

Not to derail the thread too much, but you want to be careful with that.

The very expensive and slow "Canadianisation" of the Victorias was directly related to incompatibilities with the legacy weapons we had and what the boats could handle as built. Then once the old FC and handling gear was jammed into the boats, we had to buy new torpedoes anyway because the old ones were time-expired. Good thing the AG never looked at that project.

A more germane equivalent would be that we had to buy new Sparrows with the CF-188 because they couldn't (or didn't) use the old AIR-2 and AIM-4 the CF-101's used. I'm not sure if that's the case with the F-35. Can it use the old Sparrows and Sidewinders, or would they be time-expired by then anyway?

 

[The Bread Guy]

Careful; you'll scuttle the sacred cow and have us buying F-16s.   

Does one "scuttle" or "slaughter/butcher" a sacred cow?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Got it, thanks!

 

[Haletown]

Does one "scuttle" or "slaughter/butcher" a sacred cow?

Or make it walk the plank?

 

[Journeyman]

Does one "scuttle" or "slaughter/butcher" a sacred cow?

Damn those mixed metaphors; I must have been born with a silver foot in my mouth. 

 

[ArmyRick]

Walk a plank? But the F35B has STVOL so it should be able to lift off said plank, if its long enough.  ;D

 

[HB_Pencil]

It's not a rabbit hole if the person making the statement starts off wrong.  He gave a half-assed explanation and carried on.  Sort of similar to what you see in the media.

If the RCAF JSF came to FOC without firing a missile or dropping a bomb then there might be a slight problem.  Those items of ammunition expended in testing still have to be paid for, in this case the replacement cost.  Has JSF budgeted for that?

I'll completely admit that my terminology was inexact, however the RCAF has separated cannon ammunition and other consumables from larger ordinance for the program assessment, and will do so for the alternatives that are being assessed (like Kirkhill posted). Those weapons, like bombs and missiles are not part of the operational assessment. When I said other programs, I mean the other programs considered for the CF-18 replacement (which is what the post was about.) In operational practice it is and will be different... absolutely.

That's a function of a several things. One, its the most variable aspect of an aircraft costs; its correlated to operations. That can't be predicted at all; its dependent on how many interventions we participate in, our role and its intensity.  Aircraft usage is managed within total lifetime hours, so that can be accounted with some accuracy. Fuel and other factors can be linked to that. Nobody can determine what the costs for bombs are in the next six months (Syria perhaps?), let alone 40 years. Two, what weapons you may buy will change over time. Weapon lifecycles are measured about at about decade, if not less. Right now, we will face a question about what A2A weapons to procure. Will we buy ASRAAM or Sidewinder, Meteor or AMRAAM? And how much will that cost in 10 or 20 years time? How much with JDRAM cost 15 years from now? What A2G weapons will we field in 2030? Its far more variable than any other aspect of the fighter's cost and can't be predicted in the same ways as the F-35 itself where there is some cost stability.

Third, a fair bit of Canada's current stocks will be reusable on the F-35s. Certainly,  JDAMs and Paveways can be reused. I don't know which AMRAAM model we have (I think C-5), so we might need new A2A missiles (our Sidewinders are not compatible.) Yet we might buy compatible missiles to equip our CF-18s between now and then (if we use the 120C-5 or earlier) The initial ammunition buy was for equipment  that are specific for the F-35.

Finally removing that cost probably benefits the competitors more than the F-35. Without low observable, aircraft like the F/A-18E will require more complex standoff weaponry (JASSM and JSOW-ER) to remain operationally relevant. The F-35 can approach a target and use weapons like JDAM or SDB, which are cheaper to buy and employ.


To your final question, I think there has been some thought about that. Reports coming out of the US (I think from OUE) have suggested they will utilize simulations for more weapons employment than previously suggested.  This is why there there is a drop in flying hours between the DND 2010 and 2012 assessment (and lowering of operational costs.)

 

[HB_Pencil]

There appears to no longer be a statistically significant difference in loss rates of 1 engine fighters vs 2 engine fighters.

It has been argued by some that two engines just increase cost and weight.  :dunno:

There are different ways to cut this. Certainly the F100-229 equipped F-16s have a lower number of Category A accidents (IE total aircraft write off) related to engines than F-15Es (it shares a lot with the F-35's F135.) However the data does not include FOD related damage, which has never been released publicly. However the design of the initial F135 stages are much more robust than the PW-229, and should be able to survive the vast majority of expected damage events. Also the F-16s' intake position makes it more susceptible to damage than the F-35, which should improve that stat, whatever it is. One of the interesting things about the F135 is that its should have no scheduled/reoccurring maintenance inspections once installed until its TBO, which I think is 6000 hours. All of it is done through onboard sensors. It is able to determine the extent of FOD damage in flight, or any other potential issue before it becomes catastrophic.

One of the things that works to Canada's advantage with the 2020 buy (due to delays) is that alot of the flight critical systems will have over 12 years of operations behind them and most of the kinks should be worked out. Early F-16s were apparently notorious for failures because they pushed them out of the door quickly, but continual improvement helped to increase reliability. With the data-driven nature of the F-35's ALIS and maintenance systems, that process is happening quicker than with other programs. It really mirrors what's going on in the Civil aviation world, where reliability and design has advanced significantly in the past 20 years, but jet fighter engine design really stagnated since 1995. In a way this is just catch-up to where they are at.

 

[kj_gully]

I'm sorry but it's driving me crazy...
Definition of ORDNANCE
1
a : military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment

Definition of ORDINANCE
1
a : an authoritative decree or direction : order

b : a law set forth by a governmental authority; specifically : a municipal regulation

 

[AmmoTech90]

Ditto on the ordnance thing...

While I agree that the types of weapons will change in the future, the fact that we will expend them does not.  Also we cannot predict how much ordnance will be expended on operations.

If the maintenance costs and fuel costs can be predicted, then the number of hours flown should be known.  If the hours flown are known then the training time flying should be known.  If that is known then the amount of ordnance that is forecasted to be expended in training should be known.  The way ammunition is accounted for in training is that the user L1 pays the replacement cost for an equivalent piece of ammunition.  If the RCAF has not budgeted for full project ammo cost, the money's going to come from somewhere.

Costing out cannon ammunition and CM, but not other ordnance is at best lazy, at worst dishonest.  The cannon and CM may be unique to the JSF, but what other aircraft do we have that actually carries JDAM/AMRAAM/AIM-9, etc?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am in danger of straying quickly from my lane, but AFAIK, air launched weapons are not specifically programmed against a particular aircraft.  They seem to be treated as a capability in their own right and are handled as projects separate from the aircraft itself. 

When we bought the CF18, I dimly recall that the AIM7 Sparrow was purchased as a separate project, after the fact.

 

[AmmoTech90]

I am in danger of straying quickly from my lane, but AFAIK, air launched weapons are not specifically programmed against a particular aircraft.  They seem to be treated as a capability in their own right and are handled as projects separate from the aircraft itself. 

When we bought the CF18, I dimly recall that the AIM7 Sparrow was purchased as a separate project, after the fact.

Yes, the procurement of weapons would be separate issue.  However the ammunition that a systems expends up until FOC (or sometimes IOC+x years) is funded by the project rather than annual allocations, and that would be all ammunition, not just system specific.  So if the RCAF JSF project wants to drop a JDAM, the project has to have the funds to pay for a replacement JDAM at the cost in the FY they are expending it.

Note, this is the normal procedure for ammo allocations.  I have no idea if JSF has a different arrangement set up with the Ammo Board.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Thanks for the correction on Ordinance vs ordanance. Its what I get for writing things on the fly.

Yes, the procurement of weapons would be separate issue.  However the ammunition that a systems expends up until FOC (or sometimes IOC+x years) is funded by the project rather than annual allocations, and that would be all ammunition, not just system specific.  So if the RCAF JSF project wants to drop a JDAM, the project has to have the funds to pay for a replacement JDAM at the cost in the FY they are expending it.

Note, this is the normal procedure for ammo allocations.  I have no idea if JSF has a different arrangement set up with the Ammo Board.

AFAIK I don't think it would change in practice. There isn't a JSF arrangement for weapons, except to ensure integration for different types.

The issue here is that these aren't budget documents, rather they are assessments used in support of a government decision. That's a subtle, but important difference. When it comes time to actually purchase and operate the fighter, the actual cost will be different. They will be based on operational data and actual needs. DND has not "failed"  to budget for weapons. Rather it is a variable that is unknown and is outside the considerations on which aircraft to purchase.

Two other things. I might be wrong about our AMRAAMs compatability. C-5 has the shorter fins and could fit in the F-35's weapons bays. Second, I wouldn't be surprised that the RCAF purchase more compatible ordnance over the next eight years through the CF-18's program that would carry through to the F-35.