F-35 Program - General Discussion

[John Newman]

we're already an advert for a 5I's convention. kiwis, canadians, mother, americans are in all 3 services...

Yes aware that the ADF has plenty of 'Anglosphere / 5Is' nationals in it's ranks.

(If I remember correctly the first commanding officers of both Choules and Canberra were both originally in the RCN, one I think was in the RN before the RCN too).

It's interesting too that, from what I understand, the RCAF doesn't have enough aircrews for the current approx 70 Classic Hornets, so what is going to happen when they have to recruit 'additional' aircrews for the those proposed 18 interim Super Hornets??

We should start running adverts in the Canadian (and other Anglosphere) media along the lines of:

"Mate, want to be a pilot?

"Want to fly the best of the best? Come down to Oz, we'll set you up and give you the opportunity!

"So what do you want to fly? F-35A? EA-18G? F/A-18F? P-8A? E-7A? KC-30A? G550? C-17A? C-27J? C-130J? Maybe you want to command the MQ-4C?

"The sky's the limit (no pun intended)!!"

 

[t68]

Where did a majority of the UK Harrier pilots end up?

 

[John Fedup]

Agree.

Over the last number of years, I continue to shake my head when I read some of the comments in the Canadian media regarding the F-35 (sorry not trying to give our Canuck friends on DT a kicking), when there is an article, usually a negative article, regarding the 'options' for the replacement of the RCAF's Classic Hornets.

The reader comments in said Canadian media reports can give you whip lash from the head shaking.

"Canada does not need a 'first day' strike or fighter capability", what the???

With our current PM, the above is correct. If he commits any jets, it will at the tail end of things, if at all.[/QUOTE]

That is just madness, are those people expecting that Canada will just sit there and 'wait' till the coast is clear before committing to the fight?

As per above.

Wonder how many Canuck pilots would be looking seriously at a transfer to the RAAF??

Quite a few at present I would expect and more if junior gets re-elected.

 

[John Fedup]

It's interesting too that, from what I understand, the RCAF doesn't have enough aircrews for the current approx 70 Classic Hornets, so what is going to happen when they have to recruit 'additional' aircrews for the those proposed 18 interim Super Hornets??

That could be the case. I believe the RCAF borrowed some RAF pilots initially for our C-17s. Likely some current legacy Hornet pilots will move on to SHs and their Hornets will become spare parts.

We should start running adverts in the Canadian Media

Why waste the money, they are already well aware of the opportunity?

 

[John Newman]

That could be the case. I believe the RCAF borrowed some RAF pilots initially for our C-17s. Likely some current legacy Hornet pilots will move on to SHs and their Hornets will become spare parts.

Why waste the money, they are already well aware of the opportunity?

Hi John,

And as you know my 'Canuck' comments are not directed at the Canucks here on DT, ok?

Accurate or not, I have read that there is a shortage of pilots for the remaining 70 or so RCAF Classic Hornets, but if I've also read things properly, the current Canadian Government is saying (after they changed the rules of the game), that there isn't 'enough' aircraft to fulfil both NATO and NORAD duties, correct?

Then the only answer is more aircrew, not aircrew moving from Classic to Super.

Your politicians have dug a hole for themselves, a rather big hole too.

We all hope that they will see the 'light' eventually and just confirm their order for F-35A's, not going to hold my breath though!!!

 

[t68]

Hi John,

And as you know my 'Canuck' comments are not directed at the Canucks here on DT, ok?

Accurate or not, I have read that there is a shortage of pilots for the remaining 70 or so RCAF Classic Hornets, but if I've also read things properly, the current Canadian Government is saying (after they changed the rules of the game), that there isn't 'enough' aircraft to fulfil both NATO and NORAD duties, correct?

Then the only answer is more aircrew, not aircrew moving from Classic to Super.

Your politicians have dug a hole for themselves, a rather big hole too.

We all hope that they will see the 'light' eventually and just confirm their order for F-35A's, not going to hold my breath though!!!

Dunno about crew shortages, but I imagine crew numbers fluctuate for any given year. But by goverment definition they havnt the required numbers for cuncurrent commitments. But by my reckoning if they only have 70 aircraft left another 18 SH still does not bring them up to past numbers for legacy fleet which was 138(98 single seat 40 twins for training)

 

[Toblerone]

Text deleted

Thats not humour of any sort. and it is tasteless

Think about if for a few days

 

[John Newman]

Dunno about crew shortages, but I imagine crew numbers fluctuate for any given year. But by goverment definition they havnt the required numbers for cuncurrent commitments. But by my reckoning if they only have 70 aircraft left another 18 SH still does not bring them up to past numbers for legacy fleet which was 138(98 single seat 40 twins for training)

Yes Canada did procure a total of 138 Classic Hornets, but....

Between the time they first entered service and today, the fleet has been significantly reduced.

It was back in 2002 that they started on the upgrade program for 80 airframes, and it is the 70 or so remaining upgraded airframes (out of 80) that are still in service today.

Basically they started operating a fleet of aprox 80 airframes about 15 years ago, been a long long time since the fleet was more than 100.

The rest of the 'total' fleet has either been parked for a long time or lost, they have had a reasonably high attrition rate (as compared to the RAAF), I think that close to 20 have been lost.

So the problem for Canada with introducing 18 'interim' Super Hornets, is that they are planning to 'grow' their fleet.

On the other hand when the RAAF introduced our Super Hornets 'nominally' the available F-111 aircrews transitioned to the Super, leaving the appropriate numbers to continue with the Classic fleet, the RAAF was still maintaining the approx. 100 combat airframes.

Anyway, back to Canada, their plan is to 'grow' the fleet, not replace Classics with Supers, that is the difference.

And if they are short of aircrews, growing the fleet by another 20% isn't going to be that easy either, at least in the short term.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Nellis Red Flag page:

F-35A stealth brings flexibility to battlespace > Nellis Air Force Base > News

 

[John Fedup]

Hi John,

And as you know my 'Canuck' comments are not directed at the Canucks here on DT, ok?

Understood.

Accurate or not, I have read that there is a shortage of pilots for the remaining 70 or so RCAF Classic Hornets, but if I've also read things properly, the current Canadian Government is saying (after they changed the rules of the game), that there isn't 'enough' aircraft to fulfil both NATO and NORAD duties, correct?

Yes, correct. The rule change was necessary to justify the interim purchase (in his mind anyway).

Then the only answer is more aircrew, not aircrew moving from Classic to Super.

Your politicians have dug a hole for themselves, a rather big hole too.

Right again on both accounts, accept for one modification, these fools will never be " my politicians".

We all hope that they will see the 'light' eventually and just confirm their order for F-35A's, not going to hold my breath though!!!

LM needs to follow the Leonardo model as soon as the Canadian government issues a PO to Boeing.

 

[rjtjrt]

That could be the case. I believe the RCAF borrowed some RAF pilots initially for our C-17s.
........

RAAF had some USAF pilots flying in our C-17 crews for a fair time whilst our crews built up experience, so RCAF having RAF pilots at first may be same reason.

 

[John Fedup]

RAAF had some USAF pilots flying in our C-17 crews for a fair time whilst our crews built up experience, so RCAF having RAF pilots at first may be same reason.

Yes, you are spot on for the reason. Down the road I feel there will be further shortages as our pilots leave for commercial opportunities or foreign air forces. All air forces suffer from the former but mainly the RCAF on the the latter due to our inept pollies. The RCN has the same problem, which explains why a former RCN officer commands one of your Canberra class ships.

 

[SpazSinbad]

ON a different tack away from Canuckians and their dilly dallying this report - if true - puts the kybosh on a lot of speculation about the worthiness of the F-35. YMMV Fog of War Mebbe

Have Israel’s new F-35s seen combat? | Air Forces Monthly

 

[ADMk2]

ON a different tack away from Canuckians and their dilly dallying this report - if true - puts the kybosh on a lot of speculation about the worthiness of the F-35. YMMV Fog of War Mebbe

Have Israel’s new F-35s seen combat? | Air Forces Monthly

No, that isn't true. Eric Palmer and APA have said repeatedly the F-35 thanks to it's 'low-spec' JORD requirement, cannot go up against systems like the S-300 and Pantsir S1, so I'm afraid that is simply FAKE news...

:rel

 

[gf0012-aust]

No, that isn't true. Eric Palmer and APA have said repeatedly the F-35 thanks to it's 'low-spec' JORD requirement, cannot go up against systems like the S-300 and Pantsir S1, so I'm afraid that is simply FAKE news...

:rel

I note the clown club ran the line "jack of all trades, master of none" to the last hearing

pity they didn't provide the attribution as it came from an ex A-10 pilot
they could have then discovered that a lot of the JSF pilots at Red Flag are ex A-10 drivers - and they were the same pilots who were saying how they'd never been able to wipe the air and ground threats so comprehensively - not the F-22 sweeping ahead, but JSF cleaning house on their own

 

[Volkodav]

I note the clown club ran the line "jack of all trades, master of none" to the last hearing

pity they didn't provide the attribution as it came from an ex A-10 pilot
they could have then discovered that a lot of the JSF pilots at Red Flag are ex A-10 drivers - and they were the same pilots who were saying how they'd never been able to wipe the air and ground threats so comprehensively - not the F-22 sweeping ahead, but JSF cleaning house on their own

Perhaps the situational awareness the F-35 brings to the game over the Mk-1 eyeball that many A-10 target identifications were reliant on, may reduce the number of blue on blue tragedies in the future. It isn't just that the A-10 was vulnerable in all but the most permissive environments, the difficulty the type had in deconflicting friendlies was also an issue.

 

[rjtjrt]

Perhaps the situational awareness the F-35 brings to the game over the Mk-1 eyeball that many A-10 target identifications were reliant on, may reduce the number of blue on blue tragedies in the future. It isn't just that the A-10 was vulnerable in all but the most permissive environments, the difficulty the type had in deconflicting friendlies was also an issue.

A-10 is assumed to be the culprit in most peopls minds, but not so simple.
A-10 gets the publicity for blue on blue, but it has been pretty widely spread amoungst aircraft types.
I can't correct this for hours flown in close air support, but raw figures only.
Afghanistan 2001-2014 (from Wiki, so open to question)
A-10 - 1 incident (2 aircraft involved).
F-16 -1
Harrier -1 UK
F-18 -1
F-15 - 1
B-1. - 1
Ah-64 - 3 incident - 2 US, 1 UK

Iraq War 2003 on (not including current Iraq/Syria operation)
A-10 - 2 incidents
F-18 - 1

Re Blue on Blue - I always think US gets a lousy deal in reporting as they do so much for everyones troops in air support, and so effectively. They do so much more good than harm, and in general are extremely professional

 

[gf0012-aust]

A-10 is assumed to be the culprit in most peopls minds, but not so simple.

the bigger problem that is triggered by the hand wringing over the demise of the A10 is the disease of gunnitis.

there's a tendency to be wedded to the A-10 due to the sheer frightening power of a gatling firing UD rounds.

gunnitis has taken hold over the practical analysis of CAS being a capability response from all eared up platforms as opposed to a platform response (ipso facto, gunnitis)

 

[Volkodav]

A-10 is assumed to be the culprit in most peopls minds, but not so simple.
A-10 gets the publicity for blue on blue, but it has been pretty widely spread amoungst aircraft types.
I can't correct this for hours flown in close air support, but raw figures only.
Afghanistan 2001-2014 (from Wiki, so open to question)
A-10 - 1 incident (2 aircraft involved).
F-16 -1
Harrier -1 UK
F-18 -1
F-15 - 1
B-1. - 1
Ah-64 - 3 incident - 2 US, 1 UK

Iraq War 2003 on (not including current Iraq/Syria operation)
A-10 - 2 incidents
F-18 - 1

Re Blue on Blue - I always think US gets a lousy deal in reporting as they do so much for everyones troops in air support, and so effectively. They do so much more good than harm, and in general are extremely professional

True, the US in general does most of the heavy lifting on CAS so it is obviously more chances of accidents. My post however was in relation to how the enhanced situational awareness of the F -35 should help prevent, or at least reduce the occurrence of these incidents'.

 

[vonnoobie]

On the topic of A-10's vs F-35's the argument always seems to be one or the other... What I'm curious about is how well could they work togethor?

A modern version of an A-10 type aircraft with Link 16 working with an F-35 would be one hell of a team.