Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) News and Discussions
- Thread starter John Fedup
- Start date
Yep the USAF lost their fast jet EW assets when their F-111EW variant was retired and never replaced. Forget what they called it.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It was the EF-111 Raven, which was a modified version of the F-111A, the last examples were retired by the USAF in 1998, causing the USAF to rely upon Navy and Marine Corps EA-6B Prowlers.
Another “blah, blah, blah” F22 fan.
Try telling the guys at Red Flag that it’s a Lemon.
Last edited by a moderator:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,325
I believe the F-35 has much to offer. The only concern I have is the parts supply chain robust enough to keep the F-35 sortie rate where it needs to be in a serious confrontation with a capable foe?
NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE.
Last edited by a moderator:
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Mod Edit: This is the 3rd post where you failed to follow instructions and use logic or reason to support your post. More than 1 line of comment, that contains logic and reasoning is required. Post deleted and 3 warning points issued.
Last edited by a moderator:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,328
The NYT article is a summary of most of the F-35 problems, many of which have been solved. Much of the readiness issues and operational costs are mostly due the ALIS software C-F which has now been canned and will be replaced. In hindsight, maybe the program should have been two programs, a USAF/USN version with minor custom features for each service and a STOVL program for the Marines. Such a program may have produced marginally better airforce and naval fighters but probably not the cost savings. In any event the JSF is the future and many nations agree. There is no choice but to get this jet as close as possible to 100% and IMHO this will happen.
One of the big ongoing costs will be maintaining the F-35's stealthiness. This will always be a premium that you will have to pay for maintaining a stealthy aircraft as opposed to a simpler non-stealthy design.
How Air Force maintainers maker sure the F-35 stays a 'stealthy beast'
The question that can be reasonably asked is whether or not the time, cost and effort involved in maintaining a fleet of stealthy aircraft is worth it from an operational standpoint.
How Air Force maintainers maker sure the F-35 stays a 'stealthy beast'
The question that can be reasonably asked is whether or not the time, cost and effort involved in maintaining a fleet of stealthy aircraft is worth it from an operational standpoint.
As a counterpoint to the NYT article done as a hit piece (Inside America’s Dysfunctional Trillion-Dollar Fighter-Jet Program), professional air forces like Poland (who will acquire 32 F-35As), Korea (with orders for 60 F-35As thus far) and Japan (who will acquire 147, including 42 F-35Bs) have done their own due diligence on the F-35 program, using classified documents not available to the press. In the wide-ranging interview held on 14 Feb 2020 (that was tied to the Singapore Airshow) and reported on The Straits Times, Singapore’s Chief of Air Force, Major-General Kelvin Khong acknowledged there were concerns over the F-35s, which included design deficiencies and cost overruns.
"We are convinced that the F-35 programme has matured to a stage where confidence in the eventual delivery of a cost effective 5th generation fighter is high," he said, adding that most of the issues had been resolved in recent years. MG Khong said that it was inevitable in any development of this complexity that there would be challenges. "And although some work still needs to be done on issues like the logistics sustainment for the aircraft, most of the other issues had already been resolved." He noted that the price of the aircraft has been falling steadily due to "healthy orders" from the US and other countries like the UK and Australia, and the cost of one F-35 today has dropped by more than 40 per cent since 2010. He estimated that the total cost of acquiring and operating an F-35B, a pricier variant of the F-35 with short take-off and vertical landing capabilities which Singapore has requested for, over the lifespan of the aircraft is comparable to that of an F-15SG.
In relation to the conduct of the initial 4 F-35B training and evaluation in the US, MG Khong also said: "We believe it is not sufficient for the platform itself to be capable. It needs to be integrated into the RSAF system so that the effects of its combat power can be multiplied." In the article, “Singapore F-35 Buy Moves Closer” by Chris Pocock, he noted that:
“One interesting aspect of the F-35B sale is the extent to which Singapore might be allowed to modify and support the jets to its own requirements. The US government allowed the RSAF to add an Israeli mission computer and electronic warfare system to its F-16s. It also allowed the RSAF to write its own operational flight programs (OFPs). The Congressional notification states that “electronic warfare systems” are included in the sale, plus access to the “reprogramming center.” As a Security Cooperation Participant already, the RSAF will be aware of some problems that have arisen with the F-35 OFPs, such as a failure to synchronize those in the jets with those in the simulators. There have also been delays in updating the mission data files, a library of enemy threats to the aircraft that feed into the fighter’s advanced sensor recognition and data fusion capability. Israel has been allowed to add some unique avionics and electronic warfare systems to its F-35s.” And it is possible that Singapore would be allowed similar privileges.
Last edited:
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Hi John (hope you are well mate!),
I do agree with you that the supply chain and support systems for F-35 are still lacking, no argument.
But I do think that we are talking about (as at today), is an immature supply chain and support system, but it does appears to be improving, look at the reported increase in availability rates.
By the time the RCAF does actually introduce it's Classic Hornet replacements that supply chain should be well and truly mature.
Whilst I do agree with your concern today, I think that concern is going to disappear by the time the RCAF has ownership (hopefully) of its own fleet of F-35A.
Cheers,
If you look at the history of the F15, you might be feeling a sense of Deja Vu. F15 arrived with a sophisticated (for the time) built in test system - but no-one ordered the spares to support it and the result was a flurry of cannibalising jets with an availability of sub 50%.
In order to kill the constant press commentary that this thing was a hangar queen and worthless, the USAF ran an exercise in which they tapped into the war reserves and managed a very much improved sortie rate and smashed all the exercise objectives.
It went on to establish a record 106-0 win ratio in real life combat.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,334
I can see junior hyping how great he was by being last to order the F35 because it was finally perfected.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,335
Yes, and General Dynamics had lots of negative press too. Not sure about Grumman’s F-14. I guess the big difference between the “teen” series development was its being spread out amongst three companies. As the sole contractor LM gets a concentrated attack.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Can we all agree that 6th generation aircraft are likely to be fielded successfully in the early 2040 time frame does it not then seem plausible that because we have dithered for so long it may be better to purchase a 4.5 generation fleet as an interim?
A SH or Gripen purchase now would allow us to sell off 20 year old aircraft to a lessor state air force where these aircraft would serve well in their environment. This would allow us to formally plan and truly participate as a partner in whatever program we feel offers us the most benefit.
A SH or Gripen purchase now would allow us to sell off 20 year old aircraft to a lessor state air force where these aircraft would serve well in their environment. This would allow us to formally plan and truly participate as a partner in whatever program we feel offers us the most benefit.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,337
Absolutely not. Buying 4.5 Gen jets is a 10-15 year short term investment requiring another major capital investment just as CSC is underway and serious planning for new subs will be taking place: Yes, we could go the 4.5 Gen route as long as the electorate doesn’t have a problem buying new fast Jet kit 10 years later and our NORAD partner accepts this folly ( good luck with both). Then there is the Gen 6 timeline, likely will be be well beyond the 4.5 Gen best before date.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,338
?? left coast, help me out on this?
Excellent idea. Would definitely confirm Canada as a lesser air force for three decades. Which it seems, is exactly how most Canadians want it to be, though I'm not sure they'd be willing to spend the money for 4.5Gen aircraft which are more expensive than 5 Gen aircraft. Nor that potential development partners would rush to join you when your record with F-35 would be so poor
oldsig
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Sorry John. An east coast term for the west coast.
Mod Edit: 1 more warning point issued for posting a one-liner (that follows on from a 2-line post without substance). Normally, the Mod Team would tolerate 1 or 2 one-liners by members. Given the prior warnings issued to you recently, our patience with you on further violations of forum rules has ended.
May we suggest that you read a few reference threads before posting more? We strongly encourage members like you to take a look these reference threads before jumping in to the various discussion threads.
Mod Edit 2: Permanently Banned per member request made to delete his account received by a Moderator.
-Preceptor
Mod Edit: 1 more warning point issued for posting a one-liner (that follows on from a 2-line post without substance). Normally, the Mod Team would tolerate 1 or 2 one-liners by members. Given the prior warnings issued to you recently, our patience with you on further violations of forum rules has ended.
May we suggest that you read a few reference threads before posting more? We strongly encourage members like you to take a look these reference threads before jumping in to the various discussion threads.
Mod Edit 2: Permanently Banned per member request made to delete his account received by a Moderator.
-Preceptor
Last edited by a moderator: