Not so much a `What If', more like a `Yeah Right'- RAF F-35.

[-Neu-]

Sorry for my late reply... I'm currently traveling.

Umm, F-15E has almost identical acquisition costs to F-35. Operation costs are somewhat higher of course, which is one reason why I'd suggest a smaller fleet combined with a proper strikefighter.

Not in the current SG,SK or SE configurations, they are around 85~100 million. I could be wrong, but I don't think you can purchase the aircraft with earlier or "cheaper" avionics loadouts, because nobody produces them anymore.

Note a combination F-15E/F-16 fleet significantly reduces the operations cost of running the two-aircraft setup (by commonality in the powerplant) and all the cost projections for F-35 are currently pie-in-the-sky. We have hard numbers on what the competition costs to operate (except Gripen NG) but only projected costs for F-35 as right now it simply isn't operational and its savings are all projected on low maintenance costs which are not supported by previous stealth designs, although F-35 has been designed to significantly reduce those costs. Only experience will show how successful L-M has been at that.

While I'd agree with you that there is significant uncertainty on O&M cost, the situation is changing. A few weeks ago PEO General Bogdan stated the F-35's CFPH is projected to be 10% above that of the F-16, in SAR 2012. These figures are more refined than previous ones, with data included from the initial experience of operating the type at Eglin and Pax. Bogdan has been pretty upfront about the need to make the aircraft affordable. If those estimates prove to be correct, that's approximately 15~20% cheaper than the F-15E CFPH (I haven't seen the 2012 estimates for that aircraft)

And remember the politics here. The RCAF evaluated the competition long after the F-35 had been originally chosen (and it was chosen initially by the Liberal gov't, not the Forces). The competition looks to have clearly been stacked in its favour (yes, the range requirement was set for certain minimums. Those minimums don't allow reaching all of Canadian airspace without tanker support and were based off exceeding the CF-18's capabilities rather than the ideal capabilities, or even where the CF-101 could reach). Yes, it does outrange the Hornets when configured for the A2A role (not hard, the legacy Hornet has always been short legged and SH has so many issues with its pylon setup that it takes a real hit to its performance the moment you hang anything more than 1 gasbag, 2 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders off of it).

The NGFC process itself was not "rigged," nor was the F-35 "chosen" prior to 2010. Canada was a partner in the program, however it project officials within NDHQ believed Canada did not have to commit to a choice until 2015 (or so). However the government wanted a big flashy statement in 2010, and so they "announced" a decision. That's an important distinction, because the project staff and those in DAR undertook their analysis in an unbiased fashion. Certainly they had much better access to JSF and F/A-18E data than the other competitors, but they were able to provide some fairly accurate data on relative performance in various areas.

You are right that the baseline was set by the CF-18 range performance (which unsurprisingly all competitors met) however the NGFC analysis went beyond this. Several scenarios were developed that examined the range between various FOLs and possible weather diverts. To directly answer your assertion, the F-35 should be able to undertake almost all of these missions without the need for aerial refueling. There was only one or two scenarios that it could not reach, but the other competitors could not do this as well. In reality, the F-35 will be able to reach all of Canada's airspace without tanker support.

The fundamental problem with F-35 for the RCAF is it is simply not an Air Defence Fighter, it can do the role, but it's not designed for it, much like the CF-104 and the strike role. It's a strikefighter, and it looks like a capable one in that role but quite frankly Canada needs an ADF which can do strike rather than a Strikefighter which can do Air Defence.

With the exception of a Tranche 1 Typhoon, nobody sells a pure "air defence fighter." Everything is multirole; its somewhat ironic that you're suggesting the F-15E as an ADF, when it was designed as a replacement for the F-111 and carries significant performance penalties to undertake that mission, like a second crew member.

Put it another way, I find difficulty with your claim that the F-35 is significantly deficient in an ADF role. Its possesses as good range as the other options (including the Eurofighter, but not the F-15E), and is an significant improvement over the CF-18 in this regard. It is quite maneuverable (particularly given that other aircraft must use external tanks to achieve that range), has excellent acceleration, and the best sensor, communications, ECM and weapons fit available. It will also have much higher availability rates than any of the other aircraft, and the modular design will likely be appreciated by tech who have to service the aircraft in the north. The only serious knock against it is that it is a single engined fighter... however reliability rates on late model F-16s suggest this is not a serious concern anymore.

To let my biases out, I prefer Rafale if we get a single fighter, F-15/F-16 for a dual acquisition, but understand that the chances of Canada buying a French fighter are somewhere between slim & none.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with you there. I do like the Rafale and I believe its actually one of the better alternatives, operating extremely well over Libya, but its nearly 20 million dollars more a copy than the F-35, with similar range and performance figures, but with significantly poorer sensors and offset package. ITs also a interoperability nightmare, requiring us to purchase and sustain large amounts of new french weapons that only they use.

The published performance of the F-35 is significantly lower than pretty much everything else out there, and the US Government has had to reduce the performance requirements to ensure that the aircraft can actually meet them, bringing it on a par performance-wise with the F-4. http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/reduced-f-35-performance-specifications-may-have-significant-operational-impact-381683/. Slower acceleration and significantly reduced sustained G limits do not an effective modern fighter make. Hell, this hundred million dollar plus fighter can be out-turned by a Hawk!

Can you, or the people cited in that article tell us what altitude this test was conducted? air speed? loadout (4500 lbs full A2G, or 1000lbs A2A, or nothing?), what engine setting (mil or ab?), is that new engines or end of life? I know for some of those, the F-35's performance was tested in less than ideal configurations. If that is the case, its much easier to square the comments of Test Pilot Billy Flynn with that of the performance figures.

If this aircraft is such a bear as people claim, why has almost every military and government who has it on offer support it? Take the US military; all three services has had to make major cuts in the past three years, including the 10~15% topline through sequestration. Yet each service (including the US navy for all its grousing) has done everything it can to protect the F-35. Earlier this year Australia made an initial consideration to buy more Super Hornets, then it just decide (again) to only buy an additional squadron of Growlers and confirm the purchase of 100 F-35s. Singapore just last month seems to have gone with the fighter as well, as did the Japanese. Israel wants an additional squadron now... one of the more demanding countries in terms of requirements.

Somewhere, there is a serious disconnect between the internet perspectives on the F-35 being a dog and the performance that defence ministries actually see. And its not because they are all deluded or just see the aircraft as a bomb truck.

Also, if you remove the 2000lb JDAMs you're left with just 2 AMRAAMs. Increased performance due to reduced weight, but its a very expensive jet to but just to haul a pair of AMRAAMs around, especially when you consider the superior performance of its likely opponents.

I think you are confusing my posts. I'm looking at max range, as required for operations in the Canadian Arctic. Right now we load up CF-18s with three tanks, and two winders to give it the best range possible to undertake intercepts and others ops in the north. That's not what you would use when operating in an air superiority role, which will initially be 4 AMRAAMs, and up to 6 in block IV configuration.Even then the F-35's range will be significantly better than the CF-18.

Edited May 9, 2013 by -Neu-

[Albeback52]

Hear hear re Harrier & Grippen, but i do like the scheme, can't ever see the reds getting there hands on any though, more likely to be given Tucano's if they are lucky

And probably Airfix Tucanos at that!

[Bobski]

-Neu-

Tranche 1 Typhoon is not a pure air defence fighter. It is a multi-role strike fighter and has been since 2008. It was used as such over Libya in 2011.

Re the performance in the article - It was not the result of a test, these are the formal requirements that have been flowed down by the US Department of Defense. That they have been reduced in order for the aircraft to meet them is a concern to a lot of people, even moreso given that they are in the public domain.

Re Governments & US Mil sticking with F-35 - For a lot of Governments there is no alternative. For some that's due to their defence policy, for others its for political reasons and for others it's simply because they've invested too much into it to go elsewhere. What option does the US military have in place of F-35 other than new-build F-15s and F-16s? They're not going to import a fighter from overseas to do the same job, so the answer is none. The UK Government has no alternative for a Harrier replacement because of the decision to build carriers that can only operate STOVL aircraft.

In many ways the F-35 is a stunning aircraft, and no doubt many of its problems will be resolved, but in others it struggles. It isn't a complete waste of time and money as some people claim, but equally it clearly isn't the all-singing, all-dancing jack-of-all-trades that Lockheed and others try and claim it to be.

[Giorgio N]

Re the performance in the article - It was not the result of a test, these are the formal requirements that have been flowed down by the US Department of Defense. That they have been reduced in order for the aircraft to meet them is a concern to a lot of people, even moreso given that they are in the public domain.

Want a list of aircrafts for which the same occurred in the past ? Mind, it's a very long one and includes some types that today people would like to see instead of the F-35...

[-Neu-]

Bobski, on 09 May 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

-Neu-

Tranche 1 Typhoon is not a pure air defence fighter. It is a multi-role strike fighter and has been since 2008. It was used as such over Libya in 2011.

You do realize that you're making my point for me? And I don't believe other countries upgraded their Tranche I aircraft in the same fashion.

Bobski, on 09 May 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

Re the performance in the article - It was not the result of a test, these are the formal requirements that have been flowed down by the US Department of Defense. That they have been reduced in order for the aircraft to meet them is a concern to a lot of people, even moreso given that they are in the public domain.

The final words there are the problem; public domain. Those who have experience access in this program are adamant about its maneuverability. Moreover as I noted before, these tests are often done under very certain circumstances that are not reflective of combat performance. For this test, people have suggested this was done at MIL power. I know one of the other tests was done with end of life engine performance (and may have been in this case as well). Frankly, the media and the public don't know that and so they glom onto these figures completely out of context and add it to the "its a flying pig" narrative.

I should also say that I do understand that the aircraft's performance has taken a hit. What I'm questioning is what does that actually mean for its actual combat performance.

Also: maneuverability is not a key performance parameter as you state. If it was, we would have heard about this "problem" earlier, and have greater detail on it.

Bobski, on 09 May 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

Re Governments & US Mil sticking with F-35 - For a lot of Governments there is no alternative. For some that's due to their defence policy, for others its for political reasons and for others it's simply because they've invested too much into it to go elsewhere. What option does the US military have in place of F-35 other than new-build F-15s and F-16s? They're not going to import a fighter from overseas to do the same job, so the answer is none. The UK Government has no alternative for a Harrier replacement because of the decision to build carriers that can only operate STOVL aircraft.

Sure, but other countries had the option of other aircraft; Japan, Israel and Singapore could have easily gone with a "superior" aircraft (like the Eurofighter)... but didn't. And reading into the UK Defence Undersecretary's comments in 2011... it seems to me that the RAF would rather go with F-35 than Tranche III Eurofighter, but feels obliged to because of the pre-existing multinational agreement.

Bobski, on 09 May 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

In many ways the F-35 is a stunning aircraft, and no doubt many of its problems will be resolved, but in others it struggles. It isn't a complete waste of time and money as some people claim, but equally it clearly isn't the all-singing, all-dancing jack-of-all-trades that Lockheed and others try and claim it to be.

Actually, I see the program as likely to hit many of those all dancing, jack of all trades performance figures. Its less difficult to understand when you consider that the fighter is about 15 years newer than its competitors, and four times the development money behind it. Is it surprising that the F-100 was a significant improvement over the F-86, or the F-16 over the F-100?

The biggest issues with the fighter are not its performance, its the capability delivery and operational cost. There are still questions if Block III IOC will be 2017, and the cost will hit the benchmarks desired. In many ways, that's the big challenge, not whether its going to pull 5 or 6Gs.

Edited May 9, 2013 by -Neu-

[tonyot]

This thread is totally off track from the Red Arrows F-35 and becoming quite tedious!! Yawn!

[CockneyCol]

Yeah, sorry but really, wasn't about daft marking ideas rather than a fighter style peeing up wall competition.

I see the reds in Grob's in five years!

[Duncan B]

9 red Hercs looping and swooping, now that would be worth watching. MoD couldn't afford all that red paint though.

Duncan B

[Giorgio N]

This thread is totally off track from the Red Arrows F-35 and becoming quite tedious!! Yawn!

Honestly Tony, there's not much if anything that can be said about the Red Arrows on the F-35 apart from "nice picture" or "wrong scheme". The Reds have never used a combat type, they have always used trainers, why should they move on the F-35 in the future ?

Moreover, even among the teams that had a tradition of using combat types, only the US and russian ones can today afford to keep using similar types, all the others have moved to trainers for obvious economic reasons or worse disbanded (like the Patrouille Suisse will do once the F-5 is retired).

Having a team centered around a flying school like the Reds flying a combat type in the future is IMHO a dream regardless of the success or not of the combat type we're debating. Even if something else were bought instead of the F-35, the chances of whaterver type adopted for frontline service appearing in Red Arrows colours are very, very slim.

Even assuming that the economic downturn suddenly reverts into a fast growth (that might happen) and the RAF finds plenty of funds, what would happen is likely to be that the RAF buy more Hawks to re-equip the Red Arrows, not that they change the whole history of the team and adopt a combat type. As the Hawk T.2 is a 100% British type, it also makes more sense to have the national aerobatic team on a national product.

If the economic situation does not improve, at that point once the T.1s are out of flying hours, if there's no other jet alternative the Reds will have to move onto whatever turboprop is used at the moment for basic training. Something that happened to other teams before (the RAAF Roulettes for example) and will likely happen to others.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Giorgio N

[tonyot]

Hello Giorgio,

I think that you`ve misunderstood me, my title to the thread was being `ironic' (ie `yeah right',...meaning `yes I`ll believe that when I see it' in a tongue in cheek manner and not in the American `gung ho' tense!).and I was just highlighting a silly bit of artwork (although well done!) that I found on the internet! I`m well aware that the Reds have always used trainers and agree with others that we`ll be lucky to have a team of three Grobs before too long anyway,........let alone a team of nine first line combat aircraft,...and I hate the F-35 anyway!! They could cancel it tomorrow for all I care!

All the best

Tony O

[Giorgio N]

Tony, I got the irony in your title. And as you see we both share the idea that it ain't gonna happen...

It can be understandable however that a thread with a picture of the F-35 would move toward a discussion on this aircraft and its chances of actually entering in service with any unit.
As for the artwork, it still looks good even if it's never going to happen. The same could however be said of many what-ifs: while some show things that could have really happened, the rest have no connection with reality whatsoever. It's still a good way to fun though !

Edited May 10, 2013 by Giorgio N

[Albeback52]

Even assuming that the economic downturn suddenly reverts into a fast growth (that might happen) and the RAF finds plenty of funds, what would happen is likely to be that the RAF buy more Hawks to re-equip the Red Arrows, not that they change the whole history of the team and adopt a combat type. As the Hawk T.2 is a 100% British type, it also makes more sense to have the national aerobatic team on a national product.

If the economic situation does not improve, at that point once the T.1s are out of flying hours, if there's no other jet alternative the Reds will have to move onto whatever turboprop is used at the moment for basic training. Something that happened to other teams before (the RAAF Roulettes for example) and will likely happen to others.

I doubt it Giorgio. History usually teaches us that once defence spending cuts are made, they are seldom, if ever reversed. Politicians usually need to find that money to bribe voters - Sorry! to "prioritise other socially necessary spending!". As to a replacement? Who knows.. As you say, the Hawk T1s are getting a bit tired. Surely an ideal replacement would be one of the current versions of the Hawk?

Allan

[keefr22]

.. and agree with others that we`ll be lucky to have a team of three Grobs before too long anyway,........let alone a team of nine first line combat aircraft,..

I think Duncan's post #15 is almost spot on. What's one of the Red's prime mission goals? Recruitment. When the Royal Air Force consists of a few dozen combat UAV's together with some A400's (maybe!) and a couple of Chinook's, why would the MOD even need to consider spending money on such an expensive recruituing tool? They can find the UAV 'pilot's' through on-line Faceache competitions, & the transport & helo pilots will come from the ever enthusiastic Air Cadet's - they should be cheap enough to keep going! Like SAR, all flying training will then have been outsourced to pfi's anyway, so there won't be any spare trainers going either.

[Bobski]

-Neu-

Rather than continuing our tangent on this thread, I think it best if we agree to disagree.