F-35 - International Participation

[Bonza]

Well the F-16 has provided and continues to provide excellent service to a stack of nations. Australia selected the F/A-18 in part because of the losses experienced with the Mirage III, but this was not the only, let alone the major factor in the selection. Anyway the F-16 has well and truly demonstrated the viability and reliability of single engine designs.

Regarding the F-16's engine, doesn't it hold the regard for least engine failures per flight hour, or something like that? I remember a reliably source stating some kind of metric like that on the forums before.

And I agree with AD, if China could build better engines (although I really should say "when", as it's only a matter of time) they'd build more single engined fighters. I'd be interested in seeing specifics on the performance and maintenance of the J-10, for example, as a way of seeing where they're at with single engined aircraft.

John, I think that while there may be some bugs in the F-35 for the moment, they will absolutely be ironed out as there's just too much riding on it not to get it right. That said, I do wish they'd left the VTOL/STOVL variant to a separate program, however. Hell, give it to Boeing as a consolation prize (if the Block II Super wasn't prize enough) and see if they can get that ugly SOB of a plane off the ground, so to speak...

 

[John Fedup]

Regarding the F-16's engine, doesn't it hold the regard for least engine failures per flight hour, or something like that? I remember a reliably source stating some kind of metric like that on the forums before.

And I agree with AD, if China could build better engines (although I really should say "when", as it's only a matter of time) they'd build more single engined fighters. I'd be interested in seeing specifics on the performance and maintenance of the J-10, for example, as a way of seeing where they're at with single engined aircraft.

John, I think that while there may be some bugs in the F-35 for the moment, they will absolutely be ironed out as there's just too much riding on it not to get it right. That said, I do wish they'd left the VTOL/STOVL variant to a separate program, however. Hell, give it to Boeing as a consolation prize (if the Block II Super wasn't prize enough) and see if they can get that ugly SOB of a plane off the ground, so to speak...

I agree, the A and C versions will be sorted eventually. The only questions are when and how much. As for the B, it will probably work out as well but not as good as it's proponents claim. I guess a separate STOVL program cost would have been so prohibitive it would have been cancelled at birth. The USMC was smart to bundle it within the JSF program, the USN and USAF not so much.

 

[Volkodav]

I agree, the A and C versions will be sorted eventually. The only questions are when and how much. As for the B, it will probably work out as well but not as good as it's proponents claim. I guess a separate STOVL program cost would have been so prohibitive it would have been cancelled at birth. The USMC was smart to bundle it within the JSF program, the USN and USAF not so much.

Compare the B to what it is replacing, it is more capable, flexible and survivable than not only the AV-8B and B+ but also the F/A-18C/D. It will also let squadrons that previously required a super carrier or land base be surged off LHDs and LHAs as required.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Compare the B to what it is replacing, it is more capable, flexible and survivable than not only the AV-8B and B+ but also the F/A-18C/D. It will also let squadrons that previously required a super carrier or land base be surged off LHDs and LHAs as required.

+ the japanese analysis which is about maintaining fixed wing combat air despite runways inop....

 

[King Wally]

Compare the B to what it is replacing, it is more capable, flexible and survivable than not only the AV-8B and B+ but also the F/A-18C/D. It will also let squadrons that previously required a super carrier or land base be surged off LHDs and LHAs as required.

You really need to hold the F-35B up next to a Harrier before you realise the amazing steps that have been taken. From the reviews I have heard it's ten fold more easy to fly, far faster to train, should have vastly fewer accidents etc. And then you have all the war fighting aspects, the sensors, the stealth, the electronic warfare, the faster speed, the larger weapons load etc etc.

 

[RobWilliams]

However, the recent articles regarding software delays, new cracks in the F-35B,

Cracking occurring on the static test airframes something like the equivalent of 9,000 hours of flight testing when the airframe itself has a service life of 8,000 (Typhoon is something like 6,000 IIRC). repair patches in place and add 2lbs of weight.

Not optimal, sure, but not really a groundbreaking issue either.

One of the main objections, price, isn't so much of a concern if the recent LRIP contracts continue to drop but the recent production cuts will slow this price decline.

UK buying the B at $96mn excluding engines, the A including engines has hit that barrier and dropping.

 

[gf0012-aust]

You really need to hold the F-35B up next to a Harrier before you realise the amazing steps that have been taken. From the reviews I have heard it's ten fold more easy to fly, far faster to train, should have vastly fewer accidents etc. And then you have all the war fighting aspects, the sensors, the stealth, the electronic warfare, the faster speed, the larger weapons load etc etc.

the really important stuff is the sensor co-op into the broader battlespace operating picture...

on that aspect alone its equiv to comparing a spear to a guided missile

when you see naysayers trotting out other "suitable" 4th gen substitutes, then thats the first thing that makes me wince as they have no idea how much JSF has changed the battlespace op picture sharing space

chalk and cheese on any parameter

 

[StobieWan]

Twin engine safety vs single engine safety got done to death on the stats side decades ago -single engine major mishaps per flying hour vs twins are slightly in favour of the singles in fact. In any twin engine design, there's usually a set of common components that need to work for both engines to be usable and there's rarely enough separation of the engines such that a catastrophic failure of one doesn't promulgate to the other.

In fact, what sometimes happens with a twin with a single failure is that the failure occurs in a flight mode where not having both engines on tap is an "Eject" note on the procedures page - either on take off or landing, and the pilot then flies the jet into the deck trying to restart the failed engine. Or shuts the good engine down by mistake- the list goes on...

F35A for Canada is (or should be) a no-brainer - it'll be in production for decades to come, will be subject to a series of improvements and upgrades dictated in part by strong international demand, and in part by it's largest operator, the US, and it is performing well in tests now.

I had the amusing good luck to be sitting with friends for dinner when my friend's partner kicked off about the F35B for the UK, throwing in the usual press-manufactured perceptions about cost, reliability etc. I've a reasonable memory for figures off the top of my head and after a brief "smart-phones and search engines at dawn" a hasty retreat was staged.

F35A seems to be coming in cheaper than Rafale or Typhoon in terms of purchase price right now - and that single engine brings with it a tolerable reduction in ownership costs as well, and Lockmart are still predicting purchase price reductions in proportion with order sizes - something like 10% every time the order per year doubles (within the obvious constraints)

Personally, I'm *gagging* to see the B model in UK service - it's gone in my eyes from the "okay, I'll snog her if the really pretty girl left with someone else" to "I wub her from now til the end of time". It's going to be a stunning leap forward for the UK and I'm rubbing my hands with glee at the thought of seeing the thing in service from the deck of one of the QE's.

 

[StobieWan]

Cracking occurring on the static test airframes something like the equivalent of 9,000 hours of flight testing when the airframe itself has a service life of 8,000 (Typhoon is something like 6,000 IIRC). repair patches in place and add 2lbs of weight.

Not optimal, sure, but not really a groundbreaking issue either.



UK buying the B at $96mn excluding engines, the A including engines has hit that barrier and dropping.

96 million USD? How can that be true? Mr Ward and the Phoenix Think Tank told me with the use of complicated charts that we'd be paying over £200 million sterling! IMPOSSIBLE!

:0

 

[gf0012-aust]

F35A for Canada is (or should be) a no-brainer

It should be a no brainer if anyone cares to understand how integrated the canucks are into US systems for SA and COP issues

good luck to them if they try the foreign platform integration dance.

if they're bitching about delays and cost over runs now - they'll discover a new definition of it if they shop outside the circle....

 

[RobWilliams]

96 million USD? How can that be true? Mr Ward and the Phoenix Think Tank told me with the use of complicated charts that we'd be paying over £200 million sterling! IMPOSSIBLE!

:0

Just so, and we're still talking pretty early on in the production phases when the count is something like 50-70 aircraft total when these examples get made (the latest LRIP production figure is 45 IIRC). So what happens to the cost when the USAF alone starts receiving that number per batch?

It's going the right way, it really is and there's no denying it.

Another thing, the F-35 is pretty sneaky with its stats. 2 of the main things people pick on it for is speed and combat radius and saying "it's less than X or Y aircraft". Those stats for the F-35 are including a full weapons load compared to the data of others which are - probably - with none.

N.B My mistake, LRIP figures are that 24 -A's are costing $98mn per aircraft excluding engine

 

[John Fedup]

It should be a no brainer if anyone cares to understand how integrated the canucks are into US systems for SA and COP issues

good luck to them if they try the foreign platform integration dance.

if they're bitching about delays and cost over runs now - they'll discover a new definition of it if they shop outside the circle....

There is zero chance for the Typhoon (too expensive), or the Rafale (would be seen as Quebec appeasement by the rest of Canada) or the Gripen NG (does not exist yet). If the F-35 is not selected then the Superhornet would be the choice assuming a RFP could be issued before the next election (unlikely). After this time Boeing will have likely closed the SH production line and the F-35 will win by default. They might even arrive before we get working versions of CH-148 Cyclone helicopters.

 

[AegisFC]

Well the F-16 has provided and continues to provide excellent service to a stack of nations. Australia selected the F/A-18 in part because of the losses experienced with the Mirage III, but this was not the only, let alone the major factor in the selection. Anyway the F-16 has well and truly demonstrated the viability and reliability of single engine designs.

The F-8 and the A-7 both had loss rates about that of twin engine planes.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Realistically the only other option for Canada is the F-18 SH. But most would say its a bit late buying into that platform now, and certainly not as your only multirole fighter going into 2025 and beyond. Only serious delay would force that option.

If F-35 is one of the most complex and advanced programs in history. I would say they have actually done a pretty good job. As mentioned most of the issues (which are minor development issues found in every plane created thus far) discovered still make it superior to every other plane flying.

Of course after about 5 years it going to be so far ahead, in terms of reliability, cost per flight hour, availability, capability, upgradability, everything will look primitive in comparison.

Being able to deploy aircraft and integrate with US, UK, AU, Japan, Italy, Dutch, Turkish, Israel, Norway, Korea, with service capability from operators available in every region.

Choosing anything else would mean your stuck into a platform with no development potential (F-15/F-18) and declining userbase, or something with frightening low number of operators/airframes (Rafale -france with 126, Typhoon with around ~400) your essentially going to be of minimal use out side of deployment with those operators.

I can't see why a country (like Canada) that has the F-35 available to it why they wouldn't choose it. There have been so many independent tenders that the F-35 has won and now its in production the risks have been mitigated, this really is a mute issue.

I can see more of a issue over what type to buy, which weapons to integrate, what improvements to make, drones verse manned fighters etc. But not over the choice of the F-35 platform.

 

[colay]

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

 

[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 has also previously run reports on the Rafale and Gripen NG and at some point they will have the Typhoon and Superhornet proponents make their cases.

 

[John Fedup]

I can't see why a country (like Canada) that has the F-35 available to it why they wouldn't choose it. There have been so many independent tenders that the F-35 has won and now its in production the risks have been mitigated, this really is a mute issue.

The reason this choice is not obvious to most Canadians is they don't take national defence seriously and our politicians act accordingly. Given the recent screw-ups in defence procurements, even if the government decided on the F-35, gen 6 fighters will be on the horizon before these fools could issue a purchase order.

 

[John Fedup]

You really need to hold the F-35B up next to a Harrier before you realise the amazing steps that have been taken. From the reviews I have heard it's ten fold more easy to fly, far faster to train, should have vastly fewer accidents etc. And then you have all the war fighting aspects, the sensors, the stealth, the electronic warfare, the faster speed, the larger weapons load etc etc.

It seems to me that the STOVL capabilities of the F-35B should make it attractive to partner nations besides Italy and the UK as it offers a fair bit of flexibility. Is the UK going to buy the B version for the RAF or will they purchase A versions also as the Italians plan to (last I heard anyway). Pricing information, like the A version, is all over the map for the B but assuming a 10-15% differential, the B should be a reasonable alternative for Australia given their acquisition of two Juan Carlos LPD ships. I think to same applies to Japan and Canada long-term, in Canada's case, the flexibility of the B version is a better sales feature than stealth (to the public at least).

I guess the issues are what are you giving up going to the B versus A, other than price? Range is likely one parameter but STOVL compensates this to a certain extent. What are the other negatives?

I still think a separate STOVL project would have allowed for better USAF/USN jets but that's water under the bridge now. I hope this program makes big-time progress in the next 12-18 months, especially with regards to the B version. If the USMC and RN can demonstrate its effectiveness then perhaps it might be more sellable than the A version is to the Cdn public.

 

[Volkodav]

Depending on the price differential moving away from a joint force and selecting the A model for the RAF could be a very smart move. With the A model being cheaper the RAF could get all the aircraft they need and leave money to buy additional B's for the FAA. The down side would be the inability of the RAF A's to surge off the carriers if required.

 

[John Fedup]

Depending on the price differential moving away from a joint force and selecting the A model for the RAF could be a very smart move. With the A model being cheaper the RAF could get all the aircraft they need and leave money to buy additional B's for the FAA. The down side would be the inability of the RAF A's to surge off the carriers if required.

Yes, at first glance buying the A version seems to be less expensive but supporting two versions may offset this price advantage somewhat and an all B version should yield a better price on the B versus a partial B purchase. I guess you need to see the actual deal price and the surging off carriers along with the STOVL flexibility is nice to have.