F-35 - International Participation

[RobWilliams]

UK DefMin has said in the past that right now the plan is only for the B, if the discussion turns to ordering another variant of the F-35 then that becomes a different discussion about what exactly the RAF wants to do in the future with its force structure with both manned and unmanned platforms.

N.B UK has signed agreements with the US about cooperation on next generation aircraft beyond the F-35.

 

[ADMk2]

At present China's engine technology is inferior and will be for sometime but they are spending billions in R&D as well as outright stealing Western secrets that we haven't already given them in exchange for market access over the next so this limitation will be less of an issue when gen 6 designs appear in 10-20 years.

For Australia, Canada, and the USN using less exotic engines in a twin engine fighter has worked out pretty well in previous designs. Although Western jet engines are extremely reliable, considering the vast empty spaces the aforementioned users operate in, twins are not a bad thing and using upgraded existing engine designs would have been less expensive than developing the F135.

So is India. How's the Kaveri looking? Why did they turn to the EJ-200 or F414 before eventually selecting F414?

Because engines are VERY hard to make. Airframes are pretty straight the materials science needed however is astonishingly difficult to master, acquiring the knowledge is one thing. Being able to do it is the really hard part which China is discovering...

 

[John Fedup]

So is India. How's the Kaveri looking? Why did they turn to the EJ-200 or F414 before eventually selecting F414?

Because engines are VERY hard to make. Airframes are pretty straight the materials science needed however is astonishingly difficult to master, acquiring the knowledge is one thing. Being able to do it is the really hard part which China is discovering...

I agree, engine technology is difficult to get right. However China is different from the Soviet Union/Russia. They have thousands of Western trained scientists and engineers, greedy corporations have setup high tech manufacturing in China in order to get market access, and China has a $hitload of money, all things which no potential adversary has had for a long time. They will master this technology far faster than you think. If their new airframes are decent then good performing engines will be a problem. Also, let's not forget they have the most computer users, the most spies, and most of the world's exotic rare earths all of which will benefit their huge electronics industry and the material science industry needed for high performance military jet engines. We can thank Western greed for this nightmare scenario (along with Japan).

With the Ukraine crisis going on, China will be watching Western reaction very closely. Their neighbours are as well because all of their South China Sea assets are looking very vulnerable now.

 

[King Wally]

I agree, engine technology is difficult to get right. However China is different from the Soviet Union/Russia. They have thousands of Western trained scientists and engineers, greedy corporations have setup high tech manufacturing in China in order to get market access, and China has a $hitload of money, all things which no potential adversary has had for a long time. They will master this technology far faster than you think. If their new airframes are decent then good performing engines will be a problem. Also, let's not forget they have the most computer users, the most spies, and most of the world's exotic rare earths all of which will benefit their huge electronics industry and the material science industry needed for high performance military jet engines. We can thank Western greed for this nightmare scenario (along with Japan).

With the Ukraine crisis going on, China will be watching Western reaction very closely. Their neighbours are as well because all of their South China Sea assets are looking very vulnerable now.

While I understand your concerns John, I must disagree with you level of alarm here. The China "catch up" is a real thing, but even with all the cash and manpower you describe they honestly are a long long way from pulling off anything close to the F-35 project (to use that as a baseline modern western example).

ADMk2 hits the nail on the head. The Chinese know a lot in theory but they have been and will continue to struggle to see it translate into reality for a long while. I'm thinking a couple decades really.

 

[colay]

The bigger concern IMO is that the US squanders it's lead in key technologies by underfunding R&D. Sec. Hagel made specific mention in his recent speech that funding for continued development of a next-generation jet engine i.e. ADVENT/AETD is one of DoD's priorities.

 

[John Fedup]

While I understand your concerns John, I must disagree with you level of alarm here. The China "catch up" is a real thing, but even with all the cash and manpower you describe they honestly are a long long way from pulling off anything close to the F-35 project (to use that as a baseline modern western example).

ADMk2 hits the nail on the head. The Chinese know a lot in theory but they have been and will continue to struggle to see it translate into reality for a long while. I'm thinking a couple decades really.

We will revisit this engine issue in 10 years and see what 10-20 billion dollars of Chinese R&D actually accomplishes.

 

[John Fedup]

One F-35 supporter in Canada is doing his bit to cut through all the FUD being flung about by the critics and cynics which appeal more to emotion and bias than to logic and reasoned analysis. The ball is now in the CG's court if they will validate the earlier selection of the F-35 for the RCAF or if they will bow to all the noise and outcry. It's noteworthy AFAIK that none of the other vendors have been willing to provide detailed cost data and will not do so unless a formal bid process is initiated.

Why The F-35 Is Essential For Canada – Part 1 | Ottawa Citizen

Why The F-35 Is Essential For Canada Part 2 | Ottawa Citizen

Why The F-35 Is Essential For Canada Part 3 | Ottawa Citizen

This paper ran a "why a F-35" last week and today and tomorrow there are articles on the Rafale.

 

[John Fedup]

I came across this article today discussing technology offsets for the JSF with regards to Canada and other partner countries.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/2014-Mar-Apr/F-Lam-Cozzarin.pdf

 

[colay]

I came across this article today discussing technology offsets for the JSF with regards to Canada and other partner countries.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/digital/pdf/articles/2014-Mar-Apr/F-Lam-Cozzarin.pdf

An insightful dissection of the aforementioned article. It also notes that the authors seem to rely on APA/REPSIM assessments of F-35 effectiveness which have been discredited in public hearings Down Under.
Elements Of Power

 

[John Fedup]

An insightful dissection of the aforementioned article. It also notes that the authors seem to rely on APA/REPSIM assessments of F-35 effectiveness which have been discredited in public hearings Down Under.
Elements Of Power

My interest in this article was the fact that Canada should be doing a better job in obtaining more meaningful work. Other tier 3 partners and Israel don't have access to source code but they are working to integrate their products to the F-35 platform in conjunction with the US which is willing to do the software integration. This will represent a much better deal longterm than what Canada seems to be doing (pretty much airframe parts only). As for comments on the F-35 itself, the article has some interesting facts and some stuff that is off base or dated.

 

[RobWilliams]

But what sort of products or weapons are specific to Canada? Most of the cold weather stuff is required by Norway too AFAIK.

What can Canada offer to the program is what i'm looking for, the article specifically mentions their NSM, Israel have their products they want available for export. Euro members are bringing up money to have weapons integrated onto the F-35 to latch onto its export success.

 

[John Fedup]

But what sort of products or weapons are specific to Canada? Most of the cold weather stuff is required by Norway too AFAIK.

What can Canada offer to the program is what i'm looking for, the article specifically mentions their NSM, Israel have their products they want available for export. Euro members are bringing up money to have weapons integrated onto the F-35 to latch onto its export success.

That was my point, Canada doesn't really have products that can integrate into the F-35 software because the Canadian government does not provide sufficient R&D investment dollars to Canadian industry to develop these upscale products that can be exported to partner nations and have upgrade revenue over the lifecycle of the F-35 program or put another way Canada's panty waist crowd does not support weapons development which is heavily software dependent and thus would provide years of upgrade revenue. These are the same people who then complain there is not enough industrial offset to justify the purchase.

 

[colay]

My interest in this article was the fact that Canada should be doing a better job in obtaining more meaningful work. Other tier 3 partners and Israel don't have access to source code but they are working to integrate their products to the F-35 platform in conjunction with the US which is willing to do the software integration. This will represent a much better deal longterm than what Canada seems to be doing (pretty much airframe parts only). As for comments on the F-35 itself, the article has some interesting facts and some stuff that is off base or dated.

Ahh, fair enough though it wasn't apparent from your original one-liner intro to the link.

 

[RobWilliams]

That was my point, Canada doesn't really have products that can integrate into the F-35 software because the Canadian government does not provide sufficient R&D investment dollars to Canadian industry to develop these upscale products that can be exported to partner nations and have upgrade revenue over the lifecycle of the F-35 program or put another way Canada's panty waist crowd does not support weapons development which is heavily software dependent and thus would provide years of upgrade revenue. These are the same people who then complain there is not enough industrial offset to justify the purchase.

Ok, it just threw me because how I read your original comment it seemed like you were ragging on Canada for not pushing for getting the work on the F-35 program rather than funding the development of the products to integrate, if that makes sense.

 

[John Fedup]

Ok, it just threw me because how I read your original comment it seemed like you were ragging on Canada for not pushing for getting the work on the F-35 program rather than funding the development of the products to integrate, if that makes sense.

It is an important difference. Yes, there is government support for getting work and they did provide seed money but it has primarily been for industries that build component parts. There is no political will to provide money to companies for building weapons systems that could be integrated into the F-35. Had there been some effort to promote this, it would provide some better talking points on why a F-35 acquisition would be better for long-term high technology development and job creation in Canada. Even without this effort, the likely industrial benefits from the F-35 will be superior to anything coming from a Superhornet procurement. As for the Euro contenders, I can't see assembly in Canada as Rafale suggests being worthwhile (more expensive and would happen in Quebec) and can you image the infighting between the Brits, Germans, and Italians as to who has to give up what offsets to Canada for a Typhoon purchase?

 

[the concerned]

Please let me start by saying this is not a anti f-35 rant. But with countries like the UK and Italy the f-35 is a great multi role addition to its forces. But I do ask people on here that are more qualified when you have vast areas of airspace to patrol is the f-35 a good aircraft for that role. I mean if for Canada's sake you have stuff like tu-95's or tu-160's probing your airspace can it provide a good interception and what are comparisons from competing aircraft.

 

[colay]

Please let me start by saying this is not a anti f-35 rant. But with countries like the UK and Italy the f-35 is a great multi role addition to its forces. But I do ask people on here that are more qualified when you have vast areas of airspace to patrol is the f-35 a good aircraft for that role. I mean if for Canada's sake you have stuff like tu-95's or tu-160's probing your airspace can it provide a good interception and what are comparisons from competing aircraft.

The RCAF has been quite content these past many years using the CF-18 to get the job done. They are similarly content with the F-35 in the same role.

 

[Bonza]

Please let me start by saying this is not a anti f-35 rant. But with countries like the UK and Italy the f-35 is a great multi role addition to its forces. But I do ask people on here that are more qualified when you have vast areas of airspace to patrol is the f-35 a good aircraft for that role. I mean if for Canada's sake you have stuff like tu-95's or tu-160's probing your airspace can it provide a good interception and what are comparisons from competing aircraft.

Well, it carries a great deal of internal fuel - and even more so if you're flying patrols to chase away Russian bombers, as low observability would not be an issue and thus drop tanks could be used - and in addition to that it will be equipped with an extremely potent sensor suite and the most modern air-to-air weapons available. I think it will be just fine in that role.

As far as competing aircraft go, I'm sure any of them could do long range anti-bomber patrols. It's not a particularly demanding mission set for a modern multi-role aircraft.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Please let me start by saying this is not a anti f-35 rant. But with countries like the UK and Italy the f-35 is a great multi role addition to its forces. But I do ask people on here that are more qualified when you have vast areas of airspace to patrol is the f-35 a good aircraft for that role. I mean if for Canada's sake you have stuff like tu-95's or tu-160's probing your airspace can it provide a good interception and what are comparisons from competing aircraft.

The fundamental problem with the JSF debate is that the detractors tend to follow a line which focuses only on kinetic issues, and fundamentally single platform issues

what they ignore is critical

the focus in the last 15 years has been about militaries enhancing their ability to fight a far more integrated and "picture rich" fight - ie everything involved in the battlespace contributes to the warfighting picture - not only do they actively contribute to the forming and development of that battlespace and warfighting picture, (as a node in the C4ISR/SA/COP construct) but they also get material back to assist in them directly participating in the fight.

No amount of enthusiasm re extant "other aircraft options" changes the fact that a JSF has a significant edge in either informing or being better informed as part of the fight - and they can do that passively or actively

the unfort thing with the JSF debate is that it often gets dumbed down to the "Biggles" debate and completely excludes the reasons as to why curr 5th gen and the future 6th gen constructs are concentrated on developments way beyond the simple "see target, shoot target" paradigm

 

[Volkodav]

I can't see what the problem is, same threat as current, being countered by a newer, more capable combat aircraft with among other things a better radar, better weapons, better range and a net working capability its predecessor never had. What is the problem?

Add in everything else the F-35 brings to the party and there is no comparison in capability the F-35 will provide over and above continental air defence, CAP what ever.