hopsalotAgree, a lease arrangement with the USN makes a lot of sense. Let the Canadians lease some USN aircraft that come off the production line now, put 3000 hours on them during the next ten years and phase out the classic Hornet as the next fighter is introduced. The SH lease aircraft are then the last to leave.
The USN is already facing a significant aircraft shortage. Why on earth would they lease planes to Canada when they can’t fill their own squadrons?
A three-pronged approach is helping the Navy keep its strike fighter inventory shortfall at a “manageable” level –speeding up legacy Hornet life extension work, preparing to conduct the Super Hornet life extension program more efficiently, and buying new Super Hornets – though the Marines’ legacy Hornet fighter inventory is so strained there are hardly any planes available for day-to-day squadron training, Navy and Marine aviation leaders said last week.
Because the Marines fly only the legacy Hornet, the service’s situation is much more dire than the Navy’s more balanced inventory of older F/A-18 A-D Hornets and F/A-18E-F Super Hornets. Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis told the Senate Armed Services seapower subcommittee last week that, according to his records from the previous day, the Marines had only 87 Hornets that were mission capable, out of the 276 planes the Marine Corps owns and the requirement for 174 at any given time.
The Marine Corps will eventually transition its F-18 squadrons into F-35B Joint Strike Fighter squadrons, but in the mean time it is scavenging old planes for parts and using 3D printers to build what it cannot find lying around – trying to keep its planes flying until more come out of the depots after their Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) overhaul.
The Navy, on the other hand, will keep its Hornets and then Super Hornets in the carrier air wing until the 2040s, making each of its three levers important to avoiding a repeat of today’s readiness shortfall.
…
With Hornets just sitting at the depots, waiting for their SLEP to start, the Navy found itself working its Super Hornet fleet harder, eating up more of the new planes’ service life faster than anticipated. For the Marines, the backlog at the depot just meant fewer planes to train with.
Navy Director of Air Warfare (OPNAV N98) Rear Adm. Mike Manazir said at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that the depots are now moving faster to get through the backlog of work – depot output increased 44 percent from Fiscal Year 2014 to 2015, he said. Still, the Navy won’t get through its Hornet SLEP backlog until FY 2018, he said.
hopsalotI think you’re making a bigger issue out of this than it needs to be. If what they purchase is a bridging capability, it gives them the ability to stretch the classic fleet out to 2025 and probably 2028-30. If they move for a complete SH replacement of classic then they will crucify themselves politically as they have already backed away from a number of other commitments.
From a fiscal sense, there is simply no money in the Canadian budget projections for fleet replacement until 2022, they have already said as much. A bridging capability they can probably justify…
The Super Hornet is an all new jet. It should be an easy conversion as far as new jets go coming from an original Hornet, but make no mistake… they will need a completely different training and sustainment pipeline for everyone involved with the Super Hornets.
If there were used Hornet airframes available somewhere for cheap that might make sense, but there aren’t.
hopsalotThis is a mature decision (realistic) given the past history records of that country (procurements). We can be glad this happens now before being too late. Also, this will certainly boost the relations b/w Bombardier and Boeing at a time when tighter relations b/w them on the civil market for example can enhance both their positions.
This is the exact opposite of a mature decision. This is a group of politicians who campaigned on the supposed need for an open competition deciding to spend billions of dollars without an open competition.
Even the idea that the Super Hornet would be available appreciably faster isn’t true any longer. Canada could receive Block 3F F-35s in 2018 or 2019. The Super Hornet could arrive at most a year sooner… think about that. They want to spend billions of dollars without an eval to save at most a year.
I like the Super Hornet, but this is a stupid decision. I suspect they realized the F-35 would win any fair competition and this was the only way they could think of to avoid being embarrassed.
hopsalotLiberals planning to buy Super Hornet fighter jets before making final decision on F-35s, sources say
OTTAWA — The Liberal government is intent on buying Super Hornet fighter jets, according to multiple sources.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet reportedly discussed the issue last week, and while no formal decision was taken, one top-level official said: “They have made up their minds and are working on the right narrative to support it.”
Rather than a full replacement of the air force’s aging CF-18 fighter fleet, it’s believed the purchase will be labelled an interim measure to fill what Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has warned is a pending “gap” in Canada’s military capabilities.
The Liberals promised during the election campaign not to buy the F-35 to replace the CF-18s. But the government has been struggling with how to fulfil that promise for fear any attempt to exclude the stealth fighter from a competition will result in a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit, according to one senior Defence Department official.
Seems the Liberals are getting ready to abandon their pledge to have an open competition. Buying Super Hornets as an “interim” measure would be pretty darn shady. For one thing nobody could honestly believe the Super Hornet would only be a short term solution, but at this point an F-35 ordered today would arrive as a Block 3F aircraft in 2018-2019. No need at all for an “interim” fighter.
hopsalotWell if we only count bombing terrorists and militia forces then yes.
Once Block 3F is deployed the F-35 will be capable of undertaking the full range of missions against any threat level. Even at IOC the F-35 is substantially better suited to strikes in defended airspace than the aircraft it is replacing.
What you ignore here is that all ECDs FOCed a fair deal earlier and while they couldn’t perform the full fledged range of missions, they could perform their assigned missions without significant restrictions.
That is untrue, as shown above. The “Omnirole” Rafale was incapable of ground attack at IOC and was reliant on buddy lasing for years until a targeting pod was finally integrated. Those are most certainly “significant restrictions.”
The USMC IOC declaration came about 4 years or so after the first A/C were delivered and we all know that this IOC declaration had more of a symbolic character than anything else.
The F-35B’s IOC is at least as legit as the first Rafales. It is a limited capability but at least it is multirole…
When the USAF declares IOC later this year after 5.5 years they are still loaded with limitations of all sorts and the conclusion of Block 3F development isn’t done yet. It may last until 2019 before FOC can really be declared and whether that covers all roles the F-35 would be theoretically capable of performing is yet another question.
At IOC the F-35A will still have some restrictions. Again, how is this news? That was certainly true of the initial Eurocanards. At FOC the F-35 will be capable of undertaking all but a handful of missions already covered by other types.
Add that the US operates already more F-35s and has logged far more flight hours before they even reach that point. I have pointed it out before all ECDs were declared fully operational in certain roles in timeframes that are similar or even lesser than the F-35 reached IOC with limited capabilities and a lot of restrictions.
That isn’t true unfortunately. The first true Rafale prototype flew in 1991. It reached a limited IOC in 2001.(10 years) It finally had a targeting pod in 2011. (20 years)
The F-35 first flew in 2006. It reached a limited IOC in 2015, with a targeting pod. (9 years) and will reach FOC in 2018. (12 years)
Given all the above the F-35 is by no means special as some of you guys want to make us believe, neither was its development particularly fast or faster overall.
Special? No, the F-35 program has not moved particularly quickly, but nor has it moved particularly slowly. It is on track to deliver capability significantly faster than was the case for the Rafale for instance.
At the end of the day it’s a question of requirements and priorities, the ability of services to provide capabilities that matters. No aircraft type is retired and replaced overnight, there is always a transition phase which may last more or less long dependent on the actual requirements of a particular air arm. The growing complexity as well as growing versatility of modern tactical combat aircraft means that successors will naturally take longer before they can fully replace their predecessors. That’s as much true for the F-35, as it has been true for the ECDs or other recent designs.
Of course, but that is no excuse for misrepresenting the facts. The F-35 program has not moved more slowly than the Eurocanards and it is on track to deliver a far more complete multirole capability far earlier.
Even the Gripen NG isn’t slated to reach FOC before 2026… 10 years for an upgraded 4th generation fighter.
hopsalotI guess this was posted before a morning coffee:
The Damocles pods will be delivered in 2010 and will also equip Rafales in the F3 standard from the Fr air force and the Navy…
…and per the sources above we know they were ultimately operational on the Rafale in early 2011.
hopsalotErrr Hops http://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/rafale-la-dga-commande-9-pods-de-designation-de-cibles-thales
You realize we are talking about the Rafale, right?
hopsalotOk you got the point, but twist the argumdnt. The above mentioned missions/capabilities certainly don’t make up only 1% combined. Ofcourse those missions that the F-35 will be tasked with “most of the time” are those that are required most often. Doesn’t change the fact that the F-35 can’t fill all roles of its predecessors at the time of FOC.
I got the point, and no, I didn’t twist a thing.
You are listing missions that most US fighters will never undertake. This isn’t just “most of the time.” All of those missions combined don’t reach 1% of what the F-35 will spend its time doing.
Yes, at the completion of SDD there will be a handful of capabilities not yet available on the F-35… but this is hardly comparable to what was seen with the Eurofighter or Rafale.
hopsalotDamoclès became available with the Rafale F3 standard end 2008/early 2009.
Nic
No it didn’t…
The first operational pods were ordered in 2010 on an urgent basis, with a scheduled delivery in 2011.
The first pods arrived just in time for the 2011 Libya operation:
This is why the Damoclès proved essential to sort out targets and accurately determine their coordinates. We also have excellent all weather capabilities and we use our radar high-resolution mode to find and designate targets, even in the worst conditions, when the wind is blowing sand for instance. The Damoclès arrived at a crucial moment, and we can now autonomously ‘spike’ without resorting to buddy-lasing.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/08/FoxThree_Fox15.pdf
This picture of a Rafale C with 4 GBU-12 and a damocles pod is the first one to demonstrate this capability on the plane during an actual war mission.
The Damocles pod has been in opval on the Rafale in the French air force and Navy for one year and the Navy has reported its first use last January in Afghanistan but only for test purposes.
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html
Thales Damocles: Delivered just in time for the air operations in Libya, the Damocles targeting pod, designed by Thales, is an updated variant of the Damocles nacelle used on the Mirage 2000-9, the Super-Étendard Modernisé, the Sukhoi 30MKM, the Tornado IDS and the Mirage F1M. It is a multi-function, 525-pound targeting pod compatible with existing and future weapons systems. It is comparable to the Lockheed Martin Sniper AN/AAQ-33 or the Northrop Grumman Litening AN/AAQ-28(V). Equipped with an eye-safe laser range-finder, it is fully operational in all weather conditions, on all sorts of theatres and benefits from a modular design for future upgrade, according to Thales. If the first 10 nacelles were purchased in 2010 under a “crash program,” some 20 more are on order to equip the Armée de l’Air and the Aéronavale’s Rafales.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/issue/cover/Rafale-in-Combat_73661.html
The CEAM (Centre d’Experiences Aeriennes Militaires / Military Aerial Experimentation Center) is currently finishing the operational evaluation of the Thalès Damocles pod on the Rafale.
The new LDP is due to enter operational service at the end of 2010 and could probably be deployed to Afghanistan in Early 2011.The picture on the left was taken last July, 21st and shows the Rafale B304 of the 05.330 “cote d’argent” squadron landing at St Dizier Airbase during a test flight of the Damocles pod.
http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/2010/08/damocles-soon-operational-on-rafale.html
hopsalotIt is said that the northrop design looks similar to the t-38/f-5 in shape. Could it really be a two seat version of the tigershark?
It had better be something a lot better than that.
A few reporters were shown a model of an earlier version of their T-X entry and described it as very similar to the T-38/F-5. That said, it would have to have an entirely new structure/materials/engines/cockpit/avionics if it was going to have a prayer of competing.
hopsalotYou apparently missed the point of the discussion here…
Not at all.
A Block 3F F-35 will be a fully functional multi-role fighter that will be able to undertake every mission an F-16/18 or Harrier squadron could realistically expect to be tasked with. (short of nuclear war)
The same was not true of the various Eurocanards. The “Omnirole” Rafale only became operational with a targeting pod in 2011, by which time the Rafale had been operational for 9 years…
hopsalotDifferences at Block 3F:
1) SEAD the F-35 lacks a dedicated ARM with the range, speed and thus reaction time to surpress airdefense systems. The F-35 can nonetheless perform this mission in general and take out airdefences combining its advanced ESM, target coordinate generation capabilities and INS/GPS guided weapons.2) Naval strike. The F-35 lacks a credible anti-ship capability, a mission performed by F/A-18s for example.
3) Nuclear strike. If I’m not mistaken Block 3F doesn’t include the integration of a tactical nuke, like the B-61, which is also a mission performed by its pre-decessors.
4) Stand-off strikes using ACLMs as named by you already.
5) Video reconnaisance, albeit theoretically possible utilizing EOTS, there’s no indication of relevant software development in that field and the capabilities of certain podded systems are unlikely to be matched.
I think that’s enough to illustrate that the F-35 is by no means special in this aspect. It lacks certain mission roles/capabilities at the time it’s being declared as FOC, just as other types did before it, incl. the ECDs.
These are all specialized roles in the US. If anything this list argues convincingly that the F-35 will do everything required of it once it hits Block 3F.
The US uses dedicated SEAD aircraft to perform that mission, either Growlers or F-16CJs. The fact that the F-35 has a fairly significant SEAD/DEAD capability without special equipment is a big step up over the large majority of the aircraft it is replacing.
ASCM… this is again a specialized mission that most US fighters never train for. The Navy will retain Super Hornets (which the F-35 is not slated to replace) to undertake these missions and sometime in the early 2020s the F-35 will receive the JSM anyway.
Same for nuclear strike. In the short term there are plenty of other platforms capable of this mission and it isn’t a mission that receives a lot of attention anyway.
Stand off cruise missile strikes mostly fall to the USAF’s bombers. Given the range of the weapons in question 4th generation fighters can deliver them effectively.
Recon… again, the US has a host of specialized platforms for this.
Essentially what you are saying is that once it hits 3F the F-35 will be able to do 99% of what it will need to with the remain 1% to follow only a few years later. That is actually pretty darn good performance.
hopsalotBoth Boeing/Saab and Northrop Grumman are likely to present very low technical risk proposals in line with the aircraft and training system requirements specified. One way to do so would be to de risk the designs and they’ll do that by also flying their aircraft over the next couple of months. Given the size of the US training and training support market the higher cost to get a clean sheet in isn’t cost prohibitive if those designs offer performance (specs and sustainability costs) advantages.
The NG T-X design was supposed to fly early this year. No announcement yet, but it could already be flying.
hopsalotFully funded is a relative term. The rebaseline pulled funding from the program by extending out SDD and LRIP. Yes that becomes more money overall but extending out the SDD phase and reducing LRIP buys inflates the program cost and directly influenced, and delayed, IOC and FOC timings.
We are clearly not going to reach a common position on this.
I’ve read the first two via translate and will work though with the next two when I have more time. The first two are puff pieces, nor are they accurate.
As for Rafale delays, one of the Flight Global articles I quoted in the cost area is pretty clear on delays and the reasons for,
Given F-35 SDD has increased by approx 30% on original expectations there appears to be little difference between the two and both suffered at the hands of changing specifications. Remember the F-35 had a near three year delay due to requirements changes for the F-35B internal payload.
The timeframes are also pretty close as well if we look at USMC IOC as similar to the French Navy taking those first Rafales while the respective air forces declare IOC several years later.
So the National Assembly Financial committee attributes a lengthening of the program and specifications changes to program delays. Surprise, F-35 experienced exactly the same thing.
If you want an understanding of the early issues with the Rafale program I suggest reading the below report. It pretty accurately predicts the issues the Rafale was going to face in the market place as well as more realistic dev and production estimates.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/rgs_dissertations/RGSD106.html
Pretty well settles things…
The JSF/F-35 program was hardly a model of efficiency but then the various Eurocanards weren’t exactly exemplars either.
hopsalotObservation and speculation are not insults. Not sure where you are seeing bluster, all you are achieving here is demonstrating your tendency to throw in words of a negative connotation thinking that that will dis-credit others comments.
(Either that or your inadequate grasp of the English language!)With regard to contribution I feel strongly that inaccurate statements attempting to be represented as fact should always be challenged.
Hence, although you won’t like it, I will continue to observe such instances. There is a way to ensure that I don’t post. Don’t be dis-honest. :).
PS not seen you contribute anything other than mudslinging of one sort or another. My contributions are (not least in comparison!) factual observation :).
You haven’t contributed nor challenged anything. Just another post without any content… to follow up your original post which though addressed to me was clearly referring to statements made by someone else.
Sign In
