Department of National Defence Misled Parliment over F-35

[Hawk]

So basically, the Department of National Defence (DND) pushed hard for the F-35 from the very beginning. Almost deciding that it was the jet, without considering any other options like the Eurofighter, or Super Hornet. They told the government Canada needed a 5th generation stealthy plane and the F-35 was really the only option.

Now there are huge cost over runs and the Conservative government is trying to back out of part or all of the program.

We should have just bought the Super Hornet in the first place. What in the world does Canada need a stealth fighter for? To patrol our own arctic?!

National Post Article

[joness0154]

This is par for the course for the F-35 and, though not on the same scale, the F-22.

I honestly hope countries cancel their order for this. I'm sick of seeing "cost overruns" etc that rack up into the billions of dollars. That is unacceptable in any industry except, it seems, defense.

[Hawk]

Totally agree. Just out of curiosity, has there ever been a major defence project in the last 50 years that has come in relatively on budget or under budget?

Apparently Britain is having the same issues with the Eurofighter, so it seems endemic of the defence industry in general.

[NoDubJustYet]

What in the world does Canada need a stealth fighter for? To patrol our own arctic?!

To bomb places like Libya?

[Hawk]

To bomb places like Libya?

Yeah, you could argue that we need the fighters to fulfill our NATO obligations, or you could say Canada will commit ground troops and logistics to these types of missions (Afghanistan etc) but rely on other countries for close air support and bombings. We're a country with the population of California after all.

[Hawk]

Canada feezes funds over F-35 and opens doors to alternatives!

This is kinda big news up here. Story still developing.



NATIONAL POST

[David@vwvortex]

Totally agree. Just out of curiosity, has there ever been a major defence project in the last 50 years that has come in relatively on budget or under budget?

Apparently Britain is having the same issues with the Eurofighter, so it seems endemic of the defence industry in general.

There are, but you'll just never hear about them b/c they don't make good news sadly. I've worked on several multi-million $ gov't contracts that went smoothly as can be(within reason). From a gov't contractor perspective MANY times there are things that are added on after the fact that royally screw the fundamentals up of the whole project, but yet the price remains the same or the company has to go back and request more $$ for the changes. Often times the companies just don't want to say no for a variety of reasons($$ being one of them) so you can get into these viscious contractual loops of the client wants stuff, but won't pay for it. Ultimately you end up w/a total cluster of a project if gets too bad.

F-35 though REALLY needs to go away. About time we've learned a lesson about trying to get an airframe to do WAY too much.

[ATL_Av8r]

You'll be screwed if polar bears ever develop radar.

[Hawk]

F-35 though REALLY needs to go away. About time we've learned a lesson about trying to get an airframe to do WAY too much.

I haven't been following all the developments, but are they even expecting it to be a VTOL aircraft anymore or have they given up on that? Also, can the navy use them on ships yet? Cause otherwise what's left? Marines wanted VTOL, Navy wanted ship capable (obviously) has it just become an Air Force only plane.

I guess a country buying fighter jets is kind of like an individual buying a sports car. They know it's expensive and impractical and they can't really afford it, but it's just so damn cool.

How 'new' is the Super Hornet, as an alternative? I know it's not 5th generation stealth capable, but can is it significantly better than the F-15, F-16 in an air-to-air capability?

[Hawk]

Not to beat up on the defence industry, but the F-22 was a bit of a disaster from a cost standpoint, the Osprey was a cost and mechanical disaster and now the F-35?

Were the F-16, F-18, F-15 programs this problematic in the beginning?

[gr8shandini]

Not to beat up on the defence industry, but the F-22 was a bit of a disaster from a cost standpoint, the Osprey was a cost and mechanical disaster and now the F-35?

Were the F-16, F-18, F-15 programs this problematic in the beginning?

Yes. The difference was that there was a cold war and a political climate that allowed the military to continue the program without limiting the production run. Any new aircraft program is going to have considerable non-recurring costs that are intended to be amortized over the entire run. However, the first thing to happen when the costs get out of control is to cut the number of aircraft in the buy. Then everyone gets bent out of shape over the per-copy price and they cut the buy again. Next thing you know, you're buying bombers for $2.2 billion a pop.

And how exactly is the V-22 a mechanical disaster? After reaching initial operational capability, the fleet has amassed 100,000+ hours (many of those in combat) with one mishap.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1644

According to Naval Safety Center records, the MV-22 has had the lowest Class A mishap rate of any rotorcraft in the Marine Corps during the past decade. The aircraft’s reduced susceptibility, lower vulnerability and advanced crashworthiness have made it the most survivable military rotorcraft ever introduced. Fiscal Year 2010 Navy flight-hour cost data also show that the Osprey has the lowest cost per seat-mile (cost to transport one person over a distance of one mile) of any U.S. Navy transport rotorcraft.

[NoDubJustYet]

Don't worry... Hawc has been bagging on the Osprey for a long time.

[Hawk]

Don't worry... Hawc has been bagging on the Osprey for a long time.

Sorry for 'baggng on' a plane that killed 34 people in testing.

Osprey Accidents

Anyway, I'm glad it's on track now.

[gr8shandini]

Sorry for 'baggng on' a plane that killed 34 people in testing.

Osprey Accidents

Anyway, I'm glad it's on track now.

That's unfortunate, but most of those deaths (19) occured in one incident that was due to pilot error (from your own source):

At the time of the mishap, the V-22's flight operations rules restricted the Osprey to a descent rate of 800 feet per minute (4.1 m/s) at airspeeds below 40 knots (74 km/h) (restrictions typical of helicopters); the crew of the V-22 in question exceeded this operating restriction with a rate more than 100% greater

[Hawk]

That's unfortunate, but most of those deaths (19) occured in one incident that was due to pilot error.

Okay, but that still leaves 15 other deaths. I know developing a new aircraft is dangerous and I know people die but is 15 normal? Honest question.

[David@vwvortex]

Okay, but that still leaves 15 other deaths. I know developing a new aircraft is dangerous and I know people die but is 15 normal? Honest question.

I'd call it unfortunate, but look at new technology like the helicopter when it first came out. The accident rate for development then training was quite large. The Osprey is no different and now evidently has a good in combat service record.

F-16,18 and 15 all had/have their share of development issues. Every time this comes up I think back to planes like the F4U Corsair. That thing had THE worst service record when it first came out that they almost pulled it from service until they figured out the landing gear and got people trained up on the thing w/o killing themselves.

As far as the F-35 for carrier based landings I think they screwed up the spec for the tailhook. Don't quote me on that, but I thought I had seen they had to redesign that. VTOL I believe they have done their sea trials, etc. but don't know exact status on where they are on testing. This data is probably out of date that I have so... take that for what it's worth.

[gr8shandini]

Okay, but that still leaves 15 other deaths. I know developing a new aircraft is dangerous and I know people die but is 15 normal? Honest question.

Normal? No. But, unfortunately, the death tolls when transport aircraft go down tend to be larger simply because they carry more people. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_A3...t_flight_crash

Fighter programs historically lose more aircraft, but they're typically single seat and have the ability to eject, thus resulting in fewer fatalities.

It also has to do with how you classify "in flight test." The Yuma and New River mishaps occured during Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E). That phase of test has less to do with what most people think of as flight test (the Chuck Yeager stuff) and more to do with developing tactics and monitoring reliability and maintainability. It's not uncommon for this to occur under a reduced flight envelope while the developmental testing is wrapping up. If you restrict your definition of "flight test" to the developmental phase, then the V-22 had 2 "Class A" mishaps, one non-fatal, and one with 7 aboard.

Sorry. All this bean counting when it comes to people's lives makes me feel a little morbid. I'm going to stop now. Let's just say that there's more to the story than what you hear on 60 Minutes.

[KahviVW]

I haven't been following all the developments, but are they even expecting it to be a VTOL aircraft anymore or have they given up on that? Also, can the navy use them on ships yet? Cause otherwise what's left? Marines wanted VTOL, Navy wanted ship capable (obviously) has it just become an Air Force only plane.

I guess a country buying fighter jets is kind of like an individual buying a sports car. They know it's expensive and impractical and they can't really afford it, but it's just so damn cool.

How 'new' is the Super Hornet, as an alternative? I know it's not 5th generation stealth capable, but can is it significantly better than the F-15, F-16 in an air-to-air capability?

You are mixing up different variants. The F-35A is the Air Force version that takes off and lands like a conventional aircraft, it doesn't do anything else, it cannot be used on ships. The F-35B is the STOVL variant and F-35C is the navalized variant. I'm not sure which version the Canadian military ordered. If they were smart, it would only be the F-35A to replace their CF-18s.

[AZGolf]

What in the world does Canada need a stealth fighter for? To patrol our own arctic?!

Why would you want to? The North Pole and surrounding arctic belongs to Russia anyway.

[Gern_Blanston]

This is par for the course for the F-35 and, though not on the same scale, the F-22.

I honestly hope countries cancel their order for this. I'm sick of seeing "cost overruns" etc that rack up into the billions of dollars. That is unacceptable in any industry except, it seems, defense.

+1

T
F-35 though REALLY needs to go away. About time we've learned a lesson about trying to get an airframe to do WAY too much.

+1

...The F-35A is the Air Force version that takes off and lands like a conventional aircraft, it doesn't do anything else, it cannot be used on ships. The F-35B is the STOVL variant and F-35C is the navalized variant. I'm not sure which version the Canadian military ordered. If they were smart, it would only be the F-35A to replace their CF-18s.

This whole program should have been F-35Cs ( I mean other than the fact that the tailhook is in the wrong place and you can't land one on a carrier).
The VTOL version is just stupid, and the 'C doesn't give up anything in performance over the 'A; just take the tailhook off and let the Air Force fly it, put a tailhook (that works) on it for the Navy, and give some to the Marines and say "Here's your new airplane." They could have had one airplane for everyone and saved a whole lotta' money not tinkering with the other versions.

[dubfan]

Re: safety of Osprey compared to historical military aircraft programs.

One example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockhee...#Safety_record

The safety record of the F-104 Starfighter became high-profile news, especially in Germany, in the mid-1960s. Some operators lost a large proportion of their aircraft through accidents, although the accident rate varied widely depending on the user and operating conditions; the Luftwaffe lost about 30% of aircraft in accidents over its operating career,[34] and Canada lost over 50% of its F-104s.[35]

I attribute at least some of the perception that the Osprey was/is unsafe to the fetish we have in the west now with safety. No one's supposed to die from anything, ever. Even a high performance military aircraft development program.

Back OT: I know nothing about the F-35, but I have some experience with large, government-run aerospace programs and I can say with 100% certainty that most of the problems in this program, as they are in most big programs, are due to bad requirements or to bad management of requirements.

[TASVW]

"Let's show these freaks what a bloated, runaway military budget can do!"

[Hawk]

Why would you want to? The North Pole and surrounding arctic belongs to Russia anyway.

You can't argue with a flag on the bottom of the sea floor.

[Hawk]

This whole program should have been F-35Cs. The VTOL version is just stupid.

So the Marines screwed it up for everyone!

[Hawk]

Maybe we should have seen where the YF-23 program would have led. It's cooler looking than the F-35 for sure.

[gr8shandini]

This whole program should have been F-35Cs ( I mean other than the fact that the tailhook is in the wrong place and you can't land one on a carrier).
The VTOL version is just stupid, and the 'C doesn't give up anything in performance over the 'A; just take the tailhook off and let the Air Force fly it, put a tailhook (that works) on it for the Navy, and give some to the Marines and say "Here's your new airplane." They could have had one airplane for everyone and saved a whole lotta' money not tinkering with the other versions.

I agree that the B model should just be axed, but I would have to think that using the weight savings from removing all the carrier stuff to add a few feet of wing has to yield some kind of performance benefit for the A model.

[Gern_Blanston]

Yeah, you're probably right, but the one-model model sure seems like a good idea.

[Bibs]

Like many nations, Canada has a long history of poor decisions/management on military programs...DND got caught trying to ram this one through...I wonder if the Conservatives will pay for it in public opinion, or just sacrafice Minister MacKay?

The next circus is the long delayed Fixed Wing Search and Rescue program. Alenia and EADS have spent 10 years and countless dollars lobbying this program in Ottawa. Round and round it goes, with DND wanting a C-27, and the other political forces calling foul...meanwhile, the actual guys on the front lines are flying ancient platforms. To make it worse, Boeing is muddying the waters by offering the Osprey, and Ottawa's pet, Bombardier, is coming in from the side with a Dash-8...

[AZGolf]

So what you're saying is that the F-35B should be used for SAR? Faster than a Blackhawk or Osprey, but still has hover ability. Sounds like a good fit to me; maybe even use the C-model's failhook to hold a winch and life preserver. The person in question can just hang out back there while in flight back to base.

[Bibs]

So what you're saying is that the F-35B should be used for SAR? Faster than a Blackhawk or Osprey, but still has hover ability. Sounds like a good fit to me; maybe even use the C-model's failhook to hold a winch and life preserver. The person in question can just hang out back there while in flight back to base.

Lol...no...it was just a seperate commentary on Canada's procurement problems...F35 for SAR...that would be something out of a Mission Impossible movie....

[Mtl-Marc]

You'll be screwed if polar bears ever develop radar.

There are already a lot of radar stations up north. Polar bears just need to take control of them.

[KahviVW]

Yeah, you're probably right, but the one-model model sure seems like a good idea.

I agree, but why setup a contract for one design, when they can have three designs for triple the price, with little commonality! On top of that develop two engines

It's almost as bad as having two designs for the littoral combat ship (LCS).


At this rate, the Canadian government wouldn't be able to afford enough F-35s to field a meaningful force anyway.

[AZGolf]

Lol...no...it was just a seperate commentary on Canada's procurement problems...F35 for SAR...that would be something out of a Mission Impossible movie....

I would gladly sink my own small fishing boat if it meant a ride back to shore at 200+ mph hanging by a cable under an F-35. Biggest rush EVER.

[KahviVW]

I would gladly sink my own small fishing boat if it meant a ride back to shore at 200+ mph hanging by a cable under an F-35. Biggest rush EVER.

That's actually a great idea