[Tanada]

Long news piece on Trudeau's promise to scrap the Canadian version of the F-35.

WASHINGTON, VICTORIA, British Columbia, LONDON, PARIS and TEL AVIV — In a move that promises to shake up the fighter jet market, Canada's new Liberal Party government is widely expected to pull out of the Pentagon's F-35 program.

Although the remaining international partners are standing by their commitment to the joint strike fighter, Ottawa's potential exit is not exactly a vote of confidence in the fifth-generation fighter jet.

If Justin Trudeau, the newly elected prime minister, follows through on his pledge to cancel the country's planned 65-plane purchase, Canada would become the first country to reject the fifth-generation fighter — and, potentially, the first industrial partner to withdraw participation in the program.

Such a move would reverberate across the globe, with all remaining partners forced to pay higher prices for F-35s.

For Canada's supply base, the stakes are high. Many Canadian companies have spent years building components for the new plane and stand to lose as much as CDN$11 billion (US $8.3 billion) in work over the life of the jet.

On the other hand, the new Liberal government argues that an open competition for Canada's fighter-jet replacement would more than make up for the loss of the F-35 business.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /74455726/

[dissident]

Canada does not lose from dropping the F-35. The total price for the jets was set at $24 billion as of two years ago. So by the time this lemon actually flew we would have been talking about a total program expense (jets + service) of well over $30 billion. The $11 billion "lost" is based on a rather optimistic estimate of the potential component revenues that was based on the total pool of jets produced. Unlike the $24 billion estimate it was not based a fixed number but on some guess at the total production number. Of course more is better. But wishes don't pay the phone bill, as they say.

[Keith_McClary]

When do manned fighter jets become obsolete?

[Cog]

When do manned fighter jets become obsolete?

When the Air Force decides their future generals don't have to come from the pool of pilots.

They can't even get enough drone pilots because it is a career dead end.

[Tanada]

There's plenty of anxiety — perhaps even some panic — about what Donald Trump's "America First" administration will mean for trade.

But the close-knit Canada-U.S. relationship is about more than NAFTA and pipelines.

Officials and political observers are also watching to see if there will be a shake up on a host of other issues.

Here are a few key examples:

Disaster Response

From floods and ice storms to the Sept. 11 attacks, there's a long history of Canada and the United States coming to one another's aid in times of trouble. Will that change at all under a president who complained during his inaugural address that his country is spending "trillions of dollars" abroad while his own country falls into disrepair?

Nobody is panicking, but at least one former diplomat says this could be a good time to formalize the understanding about helping each other out.

"We reacted well under 9/11, but that was spontaneous and voluntary. There was no pre-arrangement that allowed so many American planes to land in Newfoundland. It just happened because of the nature of our relationship. Maybe we can't take those things for granted. Maybe we have to codify a few more of them," said Derek Burney, Canadian ambassador the U.S. under former prime minister Brian Mulroney.

Colin Robertson isn't so sure anything needs to change. He spent decades working in Canada's foreign service, including time in Washington and Los Angeles.

"These relationships transcend the relationship between the two leaders or between the national governments. They're particularly strong at the state-province level," said Robertson.

Defence

CBC News has already reported the Canadian government postponed announcing its peacekeeping plan because it wanted to get a better read on the Trump administration.

The defence impacts don't stop there. Canada may be under pressure to spend more on its military. When it comes to NATO, for instance, Trump has complained that the United States is getting "ripped off," adding that some unnamed member countries are getting a "free ride."

Figures released by NATO last summer show Canada is near the back of the pack when it comes to defence spending. Canada ranked 23rd out of 28 member countries.

"His criticism of Canada's contribution to NATO is legitimate," said Burney. "We're not alone, but if he's concerned the United States is carrying an unfair share of the burden, he's right. We should be spending more on defence if we want to give future life to NATO."
And Robertson believes the pressure to step up defence capabilities will extend to Canada's role in the Arctic.
"I think Trump will probably say 'OK, the Arctic is yours. Exercise that sovereignty. Are you going to build that base in the North or not? We want to know what you're doing.'"

Marijuana

Canada's federal government is pushing forward with its plans to legalize cannabis. Several American states have already legalized marijuana, but the U.S. could be in for a big change on that front under Trump.

During Obama's mandate, the federal government took a hands-off approach. Trump's new pick for attorney general, Jeff Sessions, said in his confirmation hearing this month that he "won't commit to never enforcing federal law" prohibiting pot possession.

With the potential U.S. resistance to legalization in mind, Robertson argues Canada may want to slow down its own plans.

"We may decide to move more slowly than the government has talked about simply because we don't want to put red flags in front of this administration when they're in the midst of a really tough negotiation on trade. I think that's the kind of thing the government will think twice about."

The federal government has promised to table legislation to legalize marijuana in the spring. It's less clear how long it would take to pass that legislation and whether provinces and municipalities would also be given time to adapt their own rules and procedures.

Regulations

Trump has also declared war on unnecessary government regulations of all shapes and sizes, pledging during the campaign to seek out and eliminate "every wasteful and unnecessary regulation."

If Canada doesn't follow suit, Burney argues it could create headaches.

"Pharmaceutical goods, medical instruments, anything like that that is going to be regulated by either government. Wouldn't it make sense for us to look at ways of doing that jointly rather than separately?" said Burney.

Environment

It was only about six months ago that Justin Trudeau, Obama and Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto engaged in an awkward three-way handshake and declared the Paris agreement to fight climate change "a turning point for our planet, representing unprecedented accord."

Together the three also agreed to work together on a series of measures to fight climate change including, making 50 per cent of power generation in North America "clean" by 2025.

Trump has said he plans to cancel his country's commitments under the Paris agreement, eliminate the U.S. Climate Action Plan and revive the U.S. coal industry.

Some Conservatives have suggested Trump's change in direction means Trudeau should reconsider his plans to put a price on carbon. Trudeau has maintained that putting a price on carbon is "the right thing to do."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada- ... -1.3948651

[Tanada]

Follow up to an earlier news story, Prime Minister Trudeau has now officially cancelled the Canadian F-35 and is switching the funds to buying the fully updated version of the F/A 18 Superhornet, probably the same plane the US Navy will be buying now that they have cancelled their F-35C order earlier this week.

Canada Cancels F-35 Order To Buy This Fighter Instead

Cold Turkey.

The F-35 brought in a lot of prospective customers upon its initial announcement. The fifth-generation stealth jet has many complications that have prevented it from becoming combat-ready. After years of setbacks, technical problems, and missed deadlines, Canada has become the first nation to cancel their order and purchase F-18 Hornets instead.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made the announcement that the Canadian Government will instead purchase F-18s from Boeing. The Royal Canadian Air Force currently uses F-18 fighters that have been in use since the early 80s and is eager to modernize their aircraft. Purchasing these 18 fighters will allow Canada to retire the oldest fighters in their fleet now that they have a suitable replacement.

Adrian Dennis

“The interim fleet provides the most effective way forward to help ensure Canada remains a credible and dependable ally. A modern fighter fleet is an essential tool for defending Canada and exercising Canadian sovereignty — especially in the northern skies.”

– Harjit Sajjan (Defense Minister)

This news comes as another blow to Lockheed-Martin’s F-35 program which has cost more than $1.5 trillion in development costs. Was Canada wise to be the first nation to pull out of their F-35 orders or should they have stuck around for the payoff?

http://worldwarwings.com/canada-cancels ... r-instead/

The question now arises, with two cancellations already will there be a flood of 'allied nation orders' also being cancelled in the next few weeks?

[Tanada]

In related new Italy is very hot and bothered over the F-35 program. Seems they were promised a lot of income and technology and after a decade they have only gotten back some 20 percent of their investment. First Canada, then the US Navy, will Italy be next to blast the White elephant?

ROME — The head of Italy’s association of defense firms has launched a blistering attack on the U.S. and Lockheed Martin, accusing them of breaking promises made to Italy about workshare on the F-35 program.

Guido Crosetto, the head of Italian aerospace and defense industry association AIAD, said the U.S. “had not honored promises” made since Italy joined the program, hurting Italian firms as well as threatening the livelihood of Italy’s fledgling F-35 maintenance center.

In June 2002, Italy became a Level 2 JSF partner by committing to invest $1 billion in the program’s system development and demonstration stage.

Rome currently plans to buy 90 aircraft. In return, Italy was told its workshare would likely reach around 65 percent of its investment. “Today we are at less than 20 percent,” said Crosetto.

Crosetto, who was a government defense ministry undersecretary between 2008 and 2011, said if Italy falls behind on F-35 workshare, political consequences would follow.

“Back then, I staked my reputation in parliament by talking about the jobs and technology Italy would gain through choosing the F-35 program,” he said. “How easy will it be to defend these choices in parliament now?”

Over recent years, Italy’s spending on the F-35 program has come under fire in parliament from politicians who consider the money better spent on schools and healthcare, forcing the government to agree to funding cuts. With elections possibly due this year, tensions over the program could return.

Crosetto said Italian firms had been shut out from a global competition last year for maintenance contracts on the F-35 program.

In November, deals were awarded to repair 65 of a possible 774 repairable items on the aircraft for the period 2021-2015, with 48 going to the UK, 14 to the Netherlands and three to Australia, making up eight percent of the total items to repair.

“Small Italian firms were excluded because the competition favored large companies,” said Crosetto.

As it won the lion’s share of contracts, the UK ministry of defense said in November that its F-35 maintenance site in Wales would consequently become “a global repair hub providing maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade services for F-35 avionic and aircraft components.”

It added, “Over the lifetime of the programme, components for hundreds of European-based F-35 aircraft will be serviced and maintained in North Wales.”

Meanwhile, Israel also has won the right to build its own F-35 maintenance hub.

Work on the two hubs follows on the heels of Italy’s decision to open its own maintenance hub at Cameri in nothern Italy, on the site of the final assembly line where it is turning out F-35s for its own air force.

Italy has to date rolled out six F-35s at Cameri, with the first four flying to Luke Air Force Base in Arizona to take part in pilot training and two deploying in December to its Amendola Air Base — the first Joint Strike Fighters built outside the US to become operational.

In 2014, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the F-35 program head, designated Cameri as a center for heavy airframe maintenance, meaning changes or repair to the body of the aircraft, including replacement of a bulkhead or the fixing of a wing.

“Italy was chosen from among many countries as a maintenance hub for all the F-35s flying in Europe, including the US aircraft flying here,” said Italian defense minister Roberta Pinotti at the time, adding that the decision was an “extraordinary result.”

Cameri has been tasked with airframe maintenance, while the UK is touting its North Wales hub as an avionics and components repair center, suggesting UK work will not overlap with work at Cameri.

But Crosetto disagreed, claiming the ramping-up of maintenance work in the UK could damage Cameri and represent a broken promise by the U.S.

“The original idea was to offer all types of maintenance at Cameri, that was the proposal made by the U.S. government and Lockheed Martin to me when I was in office,” he said. “To me the UK and Israel hubs are a violation of that,” he added.

Carlo Festucci, the general-secretary of AIAD, added, “Italy invested in Cameri with the idea it would do everything and was given the idea by Lockheed Martin that it would be the only hub in Europe.”

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/ita ... n-promises

[KaiserJeep]

I happen to think that money on the F-35 is well spent, and it is the features (stealth, supersonic cruise, VTOL version, fly-by-wire, USN/USMC/USAF/Export versions,etc) that cost a lot and require all the R&D. Having the best air superiority fighter in the world is never a bad idea, and the F-16 and FA-18 are very old tech.

[Tanada]

I happen to think that money on the F-35 is well spent, and it is the features (stealth, supersonic cruise, VTOL version, fly-by-wire, USN/USMC/USAF/Export versions,etc) that cost a lot and require all the R&D. Having the best air superiority fighter in the world is never a bad idea, and the F-16 and FA-18 are very old tech.

The F-22 and F-23 are not very old tech, they can super cruise and they are a heck of a lot cheaper.

Back in the 1960's the McNamara eras at DOD tried the same thing with an all purpose aircraft, the F-111. It turned into a white elephant that was eventually scrapped for US Navy and Marine Corp versions and only ordered in small numbers for the USAF. The illusion that you can create a product where one size fits all is just that, an illusion. Using a common engine/landing gear/structural skin material makes sense because commonality of parts reduces maintenance expenses and promotes high capability for the parallel users to work on your equipment if needed.

Demanding one aircraft does everything for everybody is unwise, unless everyone is doing exactly the same thing in the same environment. That is patently a false presumption when comparing naval and air force aircraft. The last time the two services had a highly successful aircraft used by both was the F-4 Phantom II, which began its life as a US Navy fighter-bomber and proved to be so good the USAF couldn't turn down the opportunity to adopt it. Not many years later the F-16 was designed to be the single engine air superiority fighter in both USAF and USN versions, but the Navy had spent a huge some developing the F-14 Tomcat after the disaster of the joint F-111 Navy version based on the same swing wing technology but hardened for Naval use. Swing wings turn out to need significantly more maintenance than fixed wings so President Obama had the Navy scrap all the F-14's they had during his Presidency with the promise that F-18 Super Hornets would fill the gap waiting on the F-35. Now the Navy has pulled out of the F-35 debacle of a program just as they did with the F-111 and is looking at a fully modernized version of the F-18 Super Hornet for the next two decades.

Ignoring the history of failures in the One Size Fits All approach is not only unwise, it is down right foolish and extremely expensive and wasteful too boot!

[ROCKMAN]

The problem I have with spending lots of money on the F-35 and other very high tech system: for what purpose? Our current system are more the sufficient to deal with any threat and have been for decades. Any threat from any country...except Russia and China. One can argue the balance but that's splitting hairs IMHO. But systems like the F-35 would only be valuable in a long contracted CONVENTIONAL WAR. Such as spending months battling the Chinese military in the S China Sea or Russia in Poland. The simple question is: would that happen differently whether we had the F-35 or not? The US dominates China (or Russia)? And how does China respond to our carrier group...or Russia to US bases in the EU? Difficult to come up with a palatable expectation. And if China (or Russia) dominates US forces what's our next move...attach the Chinese or Russian homeland?

In seems we've reached a point that a new level of the MAD theory: while not bringing about Mutually Assured Destruction on a nuclear level but a MAED level...Mutually Assured Economic Destruction. Build any possible scenario for a months long conventional war amongst any of the 3 players and show how it wouldn't have a crippling effect on the participants REGARDLESS of which country comes out on top.

As the computer said in "War Games": the only way to win is to not go to war in the first place. And my point doesn't even require escalation to a nuclear retaliation. As far as dealing with any other adversary the US alread has all the weapon systems it needs. Our big deficit is the willingness to engage them...such as ISIS.

[Subjectivist]

The problem I have with spending lots of money on the F-35 and other very high tech system: for what purpose? Our current system are more the sufficient to deal with any threat and have been for decades. Any threat from any country...except Russia and China. One can argue the balance but that's splitting hairs IMHO. But systems like the F-35 would only be valuable in a long contracted CONVENTIONAL WAR. Such as spending months battling the Chinese military in the S China Sea or Russia in Poland. The simple question is: would that happen differently whether we had the F-35 or not? The US dominates China (or Russia)? And how does China respond to our carrier group...or Russia to US bases in the EU? Difficult to come up with a palatable expectation. And if China (or Russia) dominates US forces what's our next move...attach the Chinese or Russian homeland?

In seems we've reached a point that a new level of the MAD theory: while not bringing about Mutually Assured Destruction on a nuclear level but a MAED level...Mutually Assured Economic Destruction. Build any possible scenario for a months long conventional war amongst any of the 3 players and show how it wouldn't have a crippling effect on the participants REGARDLESS of which country comes out on top.

As the computer said in "War Games": the only way to win is to not go to war in the first place. And my point doesn't even require escalation to a nuclear retaliation. As far as dealing with any other adversary the US alread has all the weapon systems it needs. Our big deficit is the willingness to engage them...such as ISIS.

A lot of truth in what you have written here. Something else I think is worth pointing out, these F35 all role aircraft cost 5-7 times as much as a modernized f15-16-18 would cost on a unit by unit basis. That means for a given sum you get far fewer units, and even worse every unit lost is a large deduction from your inventory. If you can only buy say 50 planes instead of 250 then a single loss is 2 percent of your total inventory. This has been a major headache with the B2 flying wing, originally they planned to buy hundreds and equiping half a dozen bases, but in the end we only bought enough to equip a single base, and the few lost since then to acidents really hurt our capability because we started with such a low number.

[ROCKMAN]

Sub - From what I'm reading lately our biggest problem is a significant number of aircraft being grounded due to lack of maintence crews. I think the Air Force announced it waz short 600 mechanics and that in some theaters up to 60% of the aircraft were grounded awaiting maintenance. Of course the Army has been complaining about a manpower shortage for a long time.

And of course, the Navy has its new toy: the The U.S. Zumwalt-class destroyer — or DD(X). And some critics wonder if it's worth the $22.5 billion cost for the three Zumwalt-class ships. But in a conventional surface battle it should do well against the Russians or Chinese. Of course, as I mentioned above, whether we win or lose that encounter it would probably lead to devastation of the US economy. I also suspect they wouldn't deploy it to the Persian Gulf. It might be nearly invisible to radar but not to the eyes of Iranian captains piloting fast boats loaded with a few thousands pounds if high explosives.

Reminds me of the flukes of war: In a battle that lasted just minutes the battleship MHS Hood was hit buy a single shell from the Bismarck. Within five minutes, the "mighty Hood", pride of the Royal Navy, had sunk. Of its crew of 1,421 men, all except for three, were KIA.

But turn about is fair play: A lone British seaplane found the Bismarck while on a scouting patrol. Armed with a small torpedo that was impossible to damage the ship's hull. But being a Brit the pilot did what one would expect. And got lucky getting away after the drop but had no idea if he scored a hit or not. But that one in 10,000 fluke: hit the rudder causing it to lock in position. So while the Bismarck cruised in a wide circle the Brit fleet caught up and sent her to the bottom.

Difficult to not expect a lot of American military casualties in the future. Also difficult to imagine many, if any, coming from Russian or Chinese fire. The American military is well positioned to fight WWIII. Unfortunately not as well prepared for "lesser" conflicts.

[Tanada]

ROCKMAN hit the bullseye once more,

Two Navy Carrier Air Wings May Cease Operations Due to Budget Woes

The US Navy has stated that two of their 10 carrier air wings may have to literally stop operations due to a lack of funding. In addition, the Navy says two more air wings will have to operate at minimum levels of only 11 flight hours per month for each pilot.

Any military pilot will tell you that they cannot stay proficient and safe at 11 flight hours a month.

Adm. Bill Moran, vice chief of naval operations, said the impact for the Navy would be immediate: Two carrier air wings would cease operations entirely, and two would operate at that “tactical hard deck” of 11 flight hours per pilot per month, the minimum allowable for safety.

“I’m about to go to the Naval Academy to welcome the newest selectees for naval aviation,” Moran told the committee. “I would hate to tell them they are not going to be able to train to be pilots for a while if we go to a year-long CR. Without training … something else has to give.” – DoDBuzz


Just this week the Navy also reported that nearly two thirds of their strike/fighter jets could not fly due to lack of maintenance and a shortage of spare parts. Over 50% of all Navy aircraft are grounded due to lack of funding according to the Navy.

https://fightersweep.com/7062/two-navy- ... dget-woes/

[yellowcanoe]

My understanding is that the per hour operating cost of the F-35 would be twice as much as the CF-18 (modified F/A-18 Hornet) fighters we currently operate. Operating costs do matter -- buying a plane with substantially higher operating costs would invariably reduce the amount of flying time. It's interesting to see that the US Navy is having trouble keeping its existing fleet of Super Hornets operating even though the operating cost is a lot less than it would be if they were reequipped with F-35's.

[ROCKMAN]

And since were talking absurdities: are y'all familiar with the war within the military against the A-10 Warthog? Primarily by the Air Force that has wet dreams over air frames like the F-35. LOL. Here's an excerpt from that tale:

"The second battle happened inside the Air Force, pitting the high-ranking officers who saw fast, sophisticated air superiority fighters as the only thing the service should fly ("not a pound for air to ground," was their mantra) against advocates for a slow, simple CAS airplane. Here, the A-10 prevailed thanks to a few effective supporters in Congress, and a 1973 deal in which Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger offered to remove a cap on the number of Air Force fighter wings if Air Force Gen. George S. Brown, then the USAF Chief of Staff, would support the A-10 and the Light Weight Fighter Program (which would later produce the F-16). Gen. Brown took the deal and the A-10 lived on."

The A-10 has proven itself time and again against small ground units for more then 30 years. It doesn't take a military genius to look at the world today: where do we have two very sophisticated military waging war with supersonic state of the art aircraft going after each other? Easy answer: no where. What we do have in multiple small and widely disbursed ground units with AAA that's typically a generation or two old. It's not even a theoretical debate: simply look back a few years at the A-10's record in Iraq. We are potentially facing similiar but less well armed/trained adversaries...if we choose to go after them. No point in comparing the ops and maintenance costs of the current airwings let alone the F-35 to what the A-10 would take.

It sadly reminds me of the Civil War and WWI generals who stuck with the traditional battle formations of previous centuries. Not adapting to maneuver warfare tactics cost hundreds of thousands of lives. And today we still have generals planning for types of engagements that won't likely develop while watching active conflicts that demand a completely different strategy.

[Tanada]

An update on the US Navy plan to buy Super-hornets instead of the F-35 POS.

Hornet’s Nest.

The F-18 Hornet has been a reliable fighter but now facing retirement in the US Navy. Many of the Navy’s F-18s are over 30 years old, far past their life expectancy. Originally they planned to phase out the Hornet in favor of the F-35, but production delays have left a void. To fill that void the US Navy has opted to purchase F-18 Super Hornets.

Dozens of Super Hornets will be brought aboard Navy carriers which are faced with high maintenance costs on older fighters. Although the Navy still intends to purchase F-35s for the being a replacement is needed for their aging fighter jets. The F-18 Super Hornet is a suitable upgrade and can be adapted into a variety of roles including combat, refueling, radar jamming and reconnaissance.

“To decrease the strike fighter shortfall and to best prepare future air wings for likely threats we will soon divest from legacy Hornets, look to buy several squadrons worth of Super Hornets and continue with efforts to bring on the F-35 carrier variant.”

This move comes as another blow to Lockheed-Martin’s F-35 which recently saw its first cancellation from the Canadian Government and purchased Super Hornets instead. This video from The Joint Forces Channel demonstrates the differences between the F-18 Hornet and the F-18 Super Hornet.

http://worldwarwings.com/us-navy-replac ... y-fighter/

[dissident]

From what I hear the F-35 was designed by a committee. Hence the predictable mess. Big US military contractors have become a collection of welfare queens and not real private companies which have realistic incentives to produce functional products. The "high tech" aspect of the F-35 looks like an obvious con job to hoodwink the politician saps. The concept of having nearly every part requiring software is patently absurd. It's not a freaking Transformer. People should be aware of the robustness of software (and firmware) from their PC experience. It does not get better just because the government put out a contract. In fact, it is even worse.

[Outcast_Searcher]

We should remember the kind of war they are fighting. They aren't fighting their wars based on cost effectiveness, or thinking about the best tool for the job. Instead the war they are fighting is this: How can I operate with as few casualties as possible on the home team, and as a bonus as few civilian casualties on the other side. In this respect the F-35 and F-22 make sense because due to their stealth capabilities they are capable of operating with fewer casualties.

Meanwhile, many of the US roads, bridges, the water system, much of the energy transport system and the grid, plus dams, levees, etc. -- continue to crumble.

How many civilian deaths and illnesses (for example, I've been reading more about unsafe lead coming from taps in public buildings) do we end up with for each F-35 vs. something more practical, in case maybe there is a big war?

...

I think it's about corruption and payoffs to fund the military industrial complex to the maximum level possible -- not minimizing casualties. But even if it WERE about minimizing casualties -- long term, I don't think they're considering enough variables as they set up the equations.