So... Now what?

We've done the impossible...  And that makes us mighty.

-Captain Malcom Reynolds (Firefly) 

The people of Canada spoke loud and clear last night.  

After a record long campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada emerged victorious as the new government-elect.  One of the highlights of their platform was to "immediately launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18 fighter aircraft.”  Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has gone on the record stating that the F-35's “stealth first-strike capability” is not needed to defend Canada, and the funds saved by going with a more affordable aircraft would be used to shore up Canada's already-troubled National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS).

Canada's election results are already sending a ripple throughout the Joint Strike Fighter program.  If the LPC keeps its promise, we will be the first major JSF partner to walk away from the program.  This could give other potential F-35 buyers second thoughts.  The JSF's laundry list of issues and increasing costs certainly will not help matters.

Time to bail.

So where does that leave us?

From the first time I put virtual pen-to-paper at Gripen for Canada, my intent was always for Canada to take a sober, second look at its JSF purchase.  The F-35 does not seem to meet Canada's strategic needs, nor its financial capabilities.  

With the JSF now out effectively  out of the picture, attention will now focus on the other options.  

The Boeing Super Hornet is still the odds-on favorite, but it would be foolish to discount the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale.  Both "eurocanards" have done fairly well in export sales lately.

Saab has mentioned that it would re-evaluate its participation based on Canada's requirements.  With the F-35 gone and a renewed focus on affordability, the Saab Gripen would seem to be an extremely attractive option.  

There still might be a "Gripen 4 Canada".

As for me...  The time has come for me to take a break from blogging for a while.  

It will likely be a few months before any "open and transparent" fighter competition is announced.  This sits just well with me...  I'm exhausted.  I will use this time to take a step back and regather my wits.  (The upcoming release of Fallout 4 may or may not have something to do with this decision.)

In a few days, I will be disabling the comment section.  While I welcome the discussion, I simply do not have time to moderate the hundreds of daily comments.  This will not mean the end of discussion however.

I will continue to participate and post at the two Facebook groups Best Fighter for Canada and Gripen for Canada.  All are welcome to join the discussion.  The groups are closed simply to cut out spam posts, any request to join is usually accepted within an hour.  Please join us if you have not already.

Hopefully, if and when a competition is announced, I will return here and re-open the comment section.

Until then, I want to thank you all for your readership, comments, and your page clicks.  This blog has become far more successful than I ever could have imagined...  And I owe it all to you.  Thanks to you, we have made Canada's next fighter purchase a priority to the incoming government.  

I hope to see you again soon.  Until then... 

Published: By: Unknown - 10:25 AM

[Rant...] WHY WE WRITE

Don't worry.  This is a one-parter.

It comes around on a seemingly regular basis.

Either here, in the Facebook group, or some other media; someone will spout off that golden nugget that attempts to put a nail through everything I and others like me have tried to do over the last few years.  That nugget reads like the following:

Those close to the F-35 program sing its praises.  Its critics are those who have never flown on it or worked on it.  

It raises an interesting point.

Why trust a random blogger over test pilot who flies the aircraft?  Why trust a scathing aviation reporter when official press releases are saying everything is tickety-boo?  What does it matter to us, anyway?  It isn't as if we will ever fly this airplane.

While it is true that us aviation enthusiasts, bloggers, critics, and other layman are not as "connected" with the program as the pilots, executives, and politicians anchoring their careers to the JSF, there is a very large difference between them and us.  A difference that often goes unnoticed in all the rhetoric.

We are the ones paying for this damn thing.

It is not the military, the government, or the primary contractor (Lockheed Martin in this case) that is the largest stakeholder.  It is the general public, Mr. and Mrs John Q. Taxpayer are the ones picking up the tab.  They are also the ones who will depend on this machinery to defend their freedom.

What Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Taxpayer are seeing isn't pretty.

They see a massive military project that is hundreds of billions of dollars over budget and years late.  They see an aircraft that is so far underwhelming in performing its intended mission.  They even see an aircraft that could be dangerous to the very people flying it.

The JSF is far from the first military project to blow its timeline and budget.  In fact, missed deadlines and red ink seem to have become acceptable over the years.  So much so that it is actually noteworthy when a project does deliver on-time and under budget.

V-22 Osprey:  Eighteen years in development with a projected cost of $36 billion.

So what makes the F-35 any different?

Simply put, it is a matter of scale.  The JSF is the largest, costliest military procurement project to date.  At almost $1.5 trillion (US), the F-35 makes the $45 billion B-2 bomber project cost seem like a footnote.   It puts the $209 billion space shuttle program to shame.

The massive scale of the F-35 program raises the stakes.  Even minor problems can end up costing the taxpayer millions of dollars.  Bigger problems can cost in the tens, or hundreds of billions.  Worse still, since the JSF is intended to replace the vast majority of the western world's fighter fleet, program delays increase the wear-and-tear on the older fighters it is meant to replace, increasing their operating costs.

Still, would it not be easier for us to simply let those in charge do their job?

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III.  Great aircraft...  But why so many?

Well, maybe if we had any faith in those people, but a history of greed and incompetence have made the public wary.

Military procurement is big business.  The world's largest economy (USA) spends the 20% percent of tax revenue on defense.  At about $718 billion in 2011, the USA's defense budget was more than half of Canada's entire gross domestic product (GDP).

Big business and big government spending leads to a "revolving door" where former government and military officials find high-paying work at the very corporations they were once tasked to oversee.  We are assured that everything is on the up-and-up...  But c'mon.

The military-industrial complex has provided us with some real doozies.  A fighter jet isn't just a fighter jet anymore; it's a also a jobs program.  This means that even the most asinine projects are funded well beyond their usefulness.  The C-17 Globemaster III, for instance, has seen its production artificially extended thanks thanks to the whims of US congress rather than the USAF's demand for more cargo aircraft.  As of April of this year, five C-17s remain unsold. 

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle:  Too cramped to be a transport, to slow to be a scout, too fragile to be a tank.

Then there are the worst-case scenarios when bureaucracy conspires to turn a rather straight-forward project into a comedy of errors.

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle was meant to provide the US Army with an armored personnel carrier (APC) with enough firepower to defend itself as well as enough speed to keep up with the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank (MBT).  Attempts to increase the Bradley's versatility led to a machine that failed to deliver on its primary purpose of delivering troops.  Instead of carrying 11 troops like its predecessor, the M113, the Bradley only carried 6.

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle has gone on to see a distinguished career, thanks partially to its bewildering number of variants.  Despite the Bradley's success, it never did work well as a troop carrier.  In fact, the M113, the APC it was meant to replace, still serves as the US Army's predominant troop transport.

The Bradley Fighting Vehicle's saga does not end there, however.  Live fire testing was manipulated to provide a more favorable result, replacing its explosive ammunition stores with cans of water.

The story of the Bradley's development was featured in the book The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard.  This was later developed into a movie comedy (what better way to represent military procurement and development) of the same name (The Pentagon Wars).

Here is a clip, explaining the evolution of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

The entirety of The Pentagon Wars can be seen here, free on YouTube.  It is well worth the watch.

Many times, those closest to a program are the least likely to criticize it.  Their career may be on the line, or they might just be to closely involved to see the "big picture".

Throughout the years, the military procurement process has been littered with examples of spending run-amok.  When the tax-paying public is being told that "everything is okay", we have reason to be suspicious.  We demand more than slick PR campaigns and condescending platitudes.

We demand tangible results.  

We demand value for our tax dollar.

We demand the truth.

Is that too much to ask? Published: By: Unknown - 3:09 PM

Meanwhile... In the rest of the world.

MORE SOUTH KOREAN SHENANIGANS

KFX concept sketch.

When South Korea announced plans to buy 40 F-35 Lightning IIs last year, part of the justification was that South Korea would have access to technologies to help it build its own indigenous fighter.  That no longer seems to be the case.

The South Korean F-35 acquisition has been controversial at best.  The JSF was first considered too expensive to procure, only for the bidding process to be abandoned and the F-35 chosen anyway.  While both Eurofighter and Boeing were able to get their Typhoon and Silent Eagle bids under the $7.2 billion (US) budget, that same money could only swing 40 F-35s.

It makes you wonder how much further the South Korean deal will be altered.

RISE IN US DOLLAR EQUALS RISE IN F-35 COST

There is a great deal of bluster about how much cheaper the F-35 is getting as it nears full-rate production.  This may or may not be true for the USA, but it is certainly false for the rest of us given the rise in the value of the US dollar.

Over the past 18 months, the US dollar has risen 30%.  This has left foreign F-35 buyers holding the bag, as JSF contracts are paid in American greenbacks.  A 3-4% reduction in production costs pales in comparison.  This leaves committed nations like Norway is the unenviable position of either reducing its order or upping its budget.

For non-commited nations like Canada, currency fluctuations alone may make the aircraft unaffordable.

A strong US economy could very well have a deep impact on foreign F-35 sales.

Thanks Obama.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

Elephant...  Republican...   Get it?

This one may seem a little out there to those uninterested in US politics (I don't blame you), but stay with me.

John Boehner's recent resignation as Speaker of the House due to dissent in the Republican party signifies a worrying prospect.  Corporate Republicans are being pushed out in favor of Tea Party Republicans.  This is causing a schism in the GOP,

Tea Party Republicans have been furious over Boehner's insistence on keeping the government running.  Instead, Tea Party members insist that Planned Parenthood be defunded, even if it means shutting down the government to prove their point.  

So why bring this up?

Being an old-school "corporate Republican", Boehner had no issue approving military spending.  He was a champion for the F-35's alternate engine program.  Not only that, but his ouster increases the risk of American military spending cuts and/or government shut-down.  Both of which would have a profound effect on F-35 production.  

The F-35 just lost one of its most powerful allies.  

Published: By: Unknown - 8:26 AM

Finally, some clarity on where the parties stand.

Like the F-35?  Better vote Conservative.

Well...  That didn't take long.

Shortly after Liberal leader Justin Trudeau announced that his party would scrap the F-35 purchase and hold a competition to replace the CF-18, the other two leaders have (somewhat) clarified their position.

Much like Trudeau, NDP Thomas Mulcair would start a competition.  Unlike the Liberals, the NDP would include the F-35 in the process.  Mulcair took the opportunity to add some campaign rhetoric, slamming Trudeau for disqualifying the F-35.

I will note here that Mulcair and the NDP have (quietly) announced that their position aligns itself with what you will see on this blog.  That is, if the F-35 is to be chosen as replacement for Canada's CF-18s, it should do so based on its own merits and suitability for Canada.

Conservative Party of Canada leader (and current PM) Stephen Harper's response was a little more...  Uh...  Apocalyptic.

Harper lambasted Trudeau's position, implying that pulling out of the JSF program would "crater" Canada's aerospace industry.  This, despite the current Tory government's own on-again/off-again relationship with the F-35.

Stephen Harper's recent statements would seem to confirm what many of us have already suspected:   The Conservatives still intend to buy the F-35.  Doing so prior to the election would have been political suicide given the F-35's recent problems however.  It would seem the last few years after the "reset" has been just a means to put off the decision until it was more politically palatable.

Would abandoning the JSF program jeopardize the Canadian aerospace industry?  Hardly.

At present, JSF-related contracts account for less than 2.3% of the Canadian aerospace industry's current revenue.  While those involved fear the worst, Frank Kendall, the US Secretary of Defense and Acquisition, stated that Canadian firms would not lose work since they offered the "best value".  

Harper's claims would seem to be "A lot of baloney".




Published: By: Unknown - 10:14 AM

Liberals promise to scrap the CF-35.

Finally.

After weeks of pretty much ignoring Canada's current DND procurement woes, a party leader have unequivocally stated their position on Canada's controversial purchase of the F-35 Lightning II.

In a rally held in Halifax today, Liberal Party of Canada leader Justin Trudeau stated, quite bluntly, that the Grits "will not buy the F-35 fighter jet".

Instead, we will launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18s; keeping in mind the primary mission of our fighter aircraft is the defense of North America.  This process will also ensure that bids include guaranteed industrial benefits for Canadian companies and workers.  

 Trudeau then emphasized that saving money on fighter jets would ensure that monies would not be taken away from shipbuilding in places like the Halifax shipyards.

While this news was a long time coming, it is not entirely unexpected.  Kelowna Liberal candidate and former CF-18 pilot Stephen Fuhr has been quite critical of the F-35.

I'm sure the "Tory blue" on the tail didn't help.

Some might find that there is something awfully familiar with a Liberal party leader promising to kibosh a planned military procurement.  In 1993, Jean Chretien promised to cancel the Mulroney government's EH101 purchase.  Calling the EH101 a "Cadillac", he kept his promise shortly after assuming the Prime Minister's office.  Many have considered this to be a bad move, as Canada incurred $150 million in cancellation fees while entering a further quagmire with the CH-148 Cyclone.

There is a substantial difference in this case, however.

Unlike the EH101 at the time of its cancellation, Canada has yet to order a single F-35.  Canada was an early investor in the program however, joining the Joint Strike Fighter Concept Demonstration phase back in 1997.  It should be noted that this was 3 years prior to the X-35's first flight, and well before the "Battle of the X-Planes".

Canada's investment into the JSF program was not done under the auspices to "reserve" aircraft.  Instead, the purpose was to buy into the industrial program.  With anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 aircraft likely to be built, it is easy to see why Canada's government at the time would want a piece of that action.

With no secured orders for Canadian F-35s, Canada would incur no penalty.  Lockheed Martin has stated quite clearly that Canada would lose out on future JSF work, but there is no guarantee Canada would receive any future JSF work in the first place.

Trudeau's speech insisted that any future Canadian fighter "guaranteed industrial benefits for Canadian companies and workers."  This now puts Liberal policy in pretty much exact sync with my views on this blog:  To replace the CF-18 with a fighter that meets the strategic, industrial, and economic needs of Canada.

See you at the polls. Published: By: Unknown - 1:28 PM

QOTW: Quality or Quantity?

VS.

(Sorry about the haphazard updates lately.  Summer is here, the weather is too nice, and great outdoors beckons.)

My last Question of the Week (or so) looked at the potential for using a bomber platform as an air-superiority asset.  A resounding 64% of you think I might need mental health counseling for even asking the question

Fair enough.

This week (or so)'s question revolves around the need to balance numbers with capability.

In most cases with fighter aircraft, you get what you pay for.  Top-notch fighters like the F-22 earn their "air-superiority" classification thanks to their speed, agility, and powerful sensor suite.  The ability to out-run, out-maneuver, and out-shoot an opponent does not come cheap, however.  The F-22 was an incredibly expensive aircraft to develop and build, and it has more than triple the cost-per-flight-hour (CPFH) of the F-16C.

Needless to say, during the post-Cold War era of declining defense budgets, purchasing and operating high-end assets means buying less of them.

So how do we prioritize capability versus cost?

Obviously, a certain level of capability is needed.  Canada cannot simply replace its CF-18s with second-hand Cessnas sporting .50 calibre machine guns duct-taped on.  A "reference threat" is needed  to be benchmarked, with any new fighter being required to exceed that threat.

But how far should we exceed that goal?

More capable and more expensive assets have the advantage of being more "future proof".  These fighters are not only capable of dealing with what is out there now, but will likely be able to handle what may come down the road.

F-15C.  Still deadly.

The F-15C is an example of this.  Despite being a 40-year-old design, the Eagle is still a very capable air-superiority fighter thanks to its impressive performance and a slew of upgrades over the years.  It is safe to say that the F-22 Raptor will likely follow suit.

The F-15C was (and still is) a very expensive aircraft, however.  It costs nearly twice as much to fly as the F-16C.

Saab Gripen.  A little less capable, but a LOT more affordable.

The biggest argument against high-cost, high-capability fighters like the F-15 and F-22 is that more affordable fighters like the F-16 and Gripen offer slightly less capability at a greatly reduced cost.

This was not always the case.  Years ago, smaller fighters like the F-5 Freedom Fighter lacked the speed and BVR capabilities of their larger, costlier counterparts.  Smaller fighters have now caught up, however and fly just as fast while carrying the same BVR missiles.  Their size limits their maximum payload and fuel, but they should no longer be seen as inferior.

Thanks to reduced costs, these fighters can be bought in greater numbers.  Not only that, but training hours can be extended, and more spares can be kept.  This allows more "wiggle room" later on.

F-35.  Blurring the lines on what makes an "affordable" fighter.

The verdict is still out on where the F-35 Lightning II lies on this spectrum.  While it does seem to offer a great deal of capability, its CPFH will likely land mid-way between the F-16C and F-15C.  The big question is is whether its vaunted abilities make it worth that much more than fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, and Super Hornet.  Its operating cost certainly stretches the limit of what is considered an "affordable fighter".

So what works best for Canada?

Do we buy the best fighter we can afford, but at reduced numbers and reduced flying hours?  Or do we buy a "less-capable" fighter, but keep (or maybe even increase) our current numbers and flying hours?

Published: By: Unknown - 6:55 AM

F-35 ZOMBIE SHUFFLE: FLEET SIZE "UNDER REVIEW".

"That's enough?"

It would seem as though the summer is a very unlucky time for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Last summer, the F-35 weathered some stormy PR after spontaneously combusting during take off.  This would have been bad enough by itself, but the incident caused the JSF to be a no-show at its international debut.

This summer, Lockheed Martin and Joint Program Office are mobilizing their PR departments once again after a not-so-complimentary report was leaked detailing the F-35's lack of dogfighting prowess.  Some have dismissed the report as "garbage" (yet still slam the JSF for being a "bloated failure").  Whatever the merit of the report, it is still a harsh blow to a program that once boasted of the JSF's superiority compared to fourth-generation fighters.

This latest bit of PR shenanigans may soon be forgotten if this next shoe drops, however...

In a document addressed to the United States of America's Senate Armed Services Committee, (SASC), Marine General Joseph Dunford addressed questions about the F-35's troubles thusly:

[QUESTION:]  “Do you believe the nation can afford to procure these aircraft at a cost of $12B to $15B per year for nearly the next 20 years for an aircraft design that will be 30 years old at the completion of the program procurement phase?”

[ANSWER:]  “Given the evolving defense strategy and the latest Defense Planning Guidance, we are presently taking the newest strategic foundation and analyzing whether 2,443 aircraft is the correct number."

This could be big.

This could mean that the Pentagon is looking at purchasing more F-35s, but given the context, it seems unlikely.   While the U.S. Military seems to have undying patience for the JSF program, the politicians in charge of the pursestrings do not.

Internationally, the Joint Strike Fighter has not quite met the sales expectations envisioned at the start of the program.  While some orders have trickled in, most partner nations have drastically cut their intended numbers.  Others have decided to "wait and see" while upgrading and extending the life of older fighter inventories.  Some, like Canada and Denmark, have "reset" in order to examine other options.

Bottom line:  The F-35 will not sell as well internationally as originally hoped.  If the USA decides to cut its numbers, there could be trouble for the program.  The JSF depends on economies of scale to help bring down unit price.  As sales decrease, the unit price increases.  As price increases, sales decrease.  (etc, etc...)  This could lead to the infamous "death spiral".

I have stated before that the "death spiral" is an unlikely scenario.  There is too much invested already to deem the aircraft a complete failure and start fresh.  Instead, numbers will be drastically cut and the F-35 will become more of a niche aircraft like the B-1B or F-22 instead of next F-16.

Like a proverbial zombie, the JSF program will continue to shuffle along...  But rotten chunks of it are starting to fall off.

[For those who haven't read it, you can find my original "Zombie Shuffle" post here] Published: By: Unknown - 6:37 AM

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: IS THE DOGFIGHT DEAD?

Welcome to QUESTION OF THE WEEK!  During the summer, I hope to post a (hopefully) weekly series asking a simple question with a difficult answer!

Last weeks revelation that the F-35 fared poorly against a F-16 in a simulated dogfight seems to have left aviation experts (and the not-so experts) debating as to whether or not the test was even relevant, given the fact that the F-35 in question was not fitted with some of its more advanced features that would typically give it the advantage.

“It [the F-35 in question] is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”

This excuse for the F-35's poor performance only highlights what many see as one of the JSF's glaring problems.  It is a "one-trick-pony".  Without its much publicized stealth and sensor technology, the aircraft cannot match fighter designs that are decades old and available for a fraction of the price.

Let's hope stealth and tech is enough...

Defenders of the JSF would point out (and rightly so) that missile and sensor technology has advanced to the point that where the traditional "dogfight" is a relic better left to Hollywood blockbusters.  

As exciting and romantic a dogfight may seem, modern fighter tactics would really prefer pilots to avoid them altogether.  Better to take your opponent out from a distance, preferably before they even know you are there.  This is the promise of the F-35; a ninja-of-the-skies taking down its opponents unseen.  Basically, if an enemy JSF shows up on your scopes...  It's already too late.

Of course, this was the same line of thinking that got  U.S. airpower in trouble over Vietnam.  Fast powerful fighters like the F-4 found that their AIM-7 Sparrow missiles faired poorly against nimble MiGs.  The Sparrow's lack of accuracy was exacerbated by the fact that early F-4 models did not have a cannon.

In order to "lock on" to an enemy target with an AIM-7 Sparrow, the launching fighter needed to "paint" the target with its radar.  The Sparrow would then follow this reflected radar beam onto the target.  This is not so hard to do with bomber flying straight and level, but not so easy with an enemy fighter that can turn faster and is shooting at you.

Similarly, in order for a heat-seeking missile like the AIM-9 Sidewinder to work, its seeker head would have to have a clear view of the enemy's exhaust (the hottest part of the aircraft).  Again, not so easy when the enemy would rather shoot you first.

The JSF standard issue AMRAAM.

Of course, the modern day AIM-120 AMRAAM is a far deal more sophisticated than Vietnam-era Sparrow.  As are modern versions of the Sidewinder.  More accurate, more agile, and "smarter"; the the latest missiles are capable of both LOAL (lock-on after launch) and HOBS (high off-boresight).  This, combined with the JSF's sensors and helmet mounted display, allows the pilot to simply look at the intended target, pull the trigger, and let the missile do all the work.

Indeed, the ability to lock on to and fire a missile at enemy without all the stress of "getting on their six" would put the F-35 at a distinct advantage...  If it was the only aircraft of doing so.

Thales TopSight (as used the MiG-29K and Su-30MKI)

Helmet mounted displays are nothing new.  Aircraft like the Su-27, MiG-29, and Eurofighter Typhoon have been using them for years.  While the F-35's HMD may be the most advanced version available, it still has some teething issues to work out.

HOBS and LOAL capability is not exclusive to the F-35 either.  Almost every fighter in the NATO inventory is compatible with the AMRAAM and Sidewinder.  Missiles like the IRIS-T, Meteor, and MICA offer similar capabilities as well.

While information on Russian air-to-air missiles is rather limited, it would be foolish to assume western superiority.  Russian missiles are actually said to be quite good.

As missile technology has advanced through the years, countermeasures have followed suit.  Modern aircraft have access to far more than the traditional "flares and chaff".  Towed decoys, expendable active decoys, and active radar jamming or "spoofing" can throw off radar-guided missiles.  Heat-seekers can be countered by lasers that lock on to and confuse their seeker head.  

Of course...  There is also the possibility of taking out a missile with another missile.

"But I don't want to fight..."

What "5th generation" fighters like the F-22 and F-35 offer that others cannot is stealth.  While other fighters may be able to match them in weapons, sensors, and countermeasures, 5th-gen fighters should, in theory, have the ability to "see-first, shoot-first".  

The F-22 and F-35 differ in performance, however.  Take away its stealth, and the F-22 Raptor is still a helluva fighter.  Thrust vectoring, supercruise, and a monstrous radar give it an edge over most fighters in any situation.  Add stealth, and you have a near unstoppable force.  Still, the Raptor has an achilles heel, it still pumps out a great deal of heat, and it lacks an IRST suitable for WVR combat.  Get in close enough with an agile aircraft and it could be "Raptor Salad".

The F-35 lacks the F-22's raw performance, but clearly outshines it in sensors.  The 360° Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) certainly should give the pilot a much better idea of what is around the aircraft.  But is this enough?

First, being able to turn your head and target your opponent is of little use if you physically cannot move your head because the helmet is too big for the cockpit.

Second, being stealthy may not be as big of an advantage as it is made out to be.  Radar technology will likely catch up sooner or later.  Unlike other countermeasures, stealth is not easily upgraded since it is "baked in" to the aircraft's design.

Third, stealthiness is not strictly the domain of American fighter manufacturers.  The next 20 years should see a proliferation of stealthy fighters originating from Russia, China, Japan, Turkey, Korea, and possibly others.

China's J-20

So does the F-35's advanced sensors and stealth give an edge in air-to-air combat?  Probably, but this edge would not be 100% effective, nor would it last very long given current advancements technology.

Stating that the F-35 will be able detect and eliminate enemy fighters using no other method but sheer technological superiority seems to be putting all the eggs into one basket.  A basket that happens to need batteries and an active wi-fi connection.

Right now, declaring the dogfight dead seems premature.

What do you think?  Please let me know in the comments below and/or the poll in the upper right hand corner of the blog (may not be visible on the mobile version).

Published: By: Unknown - 10:21 AM

F-35 CAN'T DOGFIGHT. SUPRISED?

Were you surprised by the recent hullaballoo regarding the F-35's lack of dogfighting prowess?  If so, you have not been paying much attention.

Several days ago, an article was posted on the "War is Boring" blogsite entitled:  Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can't Dogfight.  The article described a 5-page report in which a test pilot criticized the JSF's performance during combat testing against a F-16D Fighting Falcon.  Shortly after, War is Boring published the entire report.

Aviation week has hosted the report in PDF form here. Or you can read it below.

F-35 High AoA Maneuvers

The exercise, which occurred in January, pitted an early production F-35A (the standard CTOL model) against a Block 40 F-16D.  The F-35 had no stealth coating, nor did it have weapons mounted internally or externally.  The F-16D carried no weapons, but did mount two 370 gallon wing tanks.

The F-35A seemed to have every advantage.  Its stealth coating would have been on no use in WVR combat, but the absence of it and internal weapons likely saved a few pounds.  Meanwhile, the two-seat F-16D is one of heavier F-16 variants, but its GE-100 engine lacks the thrust of Block 50 models equipped with either the General Electric F110-GE-129 or Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-129 (28,000lbs of thrust vs 29,400lbs).  The F-16D was also carrying two external fuel tanks, limiting maneuvers to 7g until they were empty, as well as adding weight and drag.

To put is simply, the Viper was sandbagging.

Despite this, the F-35 faired poorly.  Its mass, small wing area, lack of thrust, intrusive flight software and cumbersome helmet all conspired against it.

The report is well worth a read, but here are some choice bits:

• Overall, the most noticeable characteristic of the F-35A in a visual engagement was its lack of energy maneuverability. 

• The EM of the F-35A is substantially inferior to the F-15E with PW-229s due to a smaller wing, similar weight, and ~15,000 Ibs less in afterburner thrust. So, in general, the high AoA capabilities of the jet could not be used in an effective way without significantly reducing follow-on maneuvering potential. Even with the limited F-16 target configuration, the F-35A remained at a distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement. 

• Insufficient pitch rate exacerbated the lack of EM. 

• No effective guns defense was found during this test. 

• The helmet was too large for the space inside the canopy to adequately see behind the aircraft. There were multiple occasions when the bandit would've been visible (not blocked by the seat) but the helmet prevented getting in a position to see him.

• Though the aircraft has proven it is capable of high AOA flight, it wasn't effective for killing or surviving attacks primarily due to lack of energy maneuverability. 

The report also goes into detail about the HMD displaying HMD BST FAULT lights as well as intrusive flight software that would fight the pilots commands initially, but then perform the inputed maneuver after-the-fact.

I can't imagine how those "antlers" could be a problem...

Some of these problems, like the intrusive flight software could be fixed with a mere software patch.  Others, like the bulky helmet, might be correctable in the future given a redesign of the cockpit and/or helmet itself.  

Other issues, like the lack of power, high weight, and small wings are a little tougher to fix.  While a more powerful engine is being studied for the JSF, do not expect to see it anytime soon.  Even then, it likely would not be enough.  As the report states, the F-35 weighs nearly as much as an F-15E, yet makes do with about ¾ of the power and wing area.  By comparison, the F-16 weighs in at just over half of the F-15Es weight, and fittingly has 50% of the power, and 50% of the wing area.

In short, you cannot change the laws of physics.  The F-35 simply has less thrust and lift than the F-16 compared to its weight.

So why is everybody surprised by this report?

It probably has not helped that, in its fervor to promote the controversial JSF, Lockheed Martin has made claims that the F-35 has equal or better kinematics than 4th generation fighters.

As luck would have it, the Lockheed Martin test pilot in the video above extols the virtues of both the F-35's dogfighting capability and its helmet...  Two issues specifically noted in the report as being lacking.

Following this latest report, the folks at Lockheed Martin and the Joint Program Office have done some backpedaling, stating that the 5-page report "Doesn't Tell the Entire Story", since the F-35 used  "was not equipped with many of the features that gives it an advantage".

“It [the F-35 in question] is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.”

Given that the report mentioned issues with the helmet's mobility this might not have been much of a game changer.  Also, while the AMRAAM is HOBS (high off-boresight) missile, using it thus reduces the missile's energy as it maneuvers and reduces its probability of kill (pK).  There is also no mention that the F-16 (or any other modern fighter) could potentially have the same HOBS capability, as well as a more suitable WVR missile like the AIM-9X or IRIS-T.

Long time JSF defenders, The Lexington Institute, have gone so far as to call the F-35's lack of dogfighting chops to be a feature, not a bug.  Err...  Yeah.

While it is true that BVR combat has been predominant since the Gulf War, that does not mean the days of the dogfight are over.  Air combat throughout the last few decades has been extremely lopsided.  A vastly superior force taking on antiquated fighters that are outnumbered, poorly maintained, flown by less experienced pilots, and lacking modern AWAC support.

The USAF had declared the gun passé prior to the Vietnam War, a deadly mistake for its pilots.  Are they making the same mistake again?  (More on this in a later post...)

Is it just for decoration?

Last summer, during my "Fighter Jet Fight Club" series, I routinely gave the F-35 low marks in the dogfighting category.  While this was mostly educated guessing on my part, I can now back up those low scores even more.  

With more evidence that the F-35 simply is not a good dogfighter, the Joint Program Office seems to be downplaying the need for such.  Instead they continue to play to the JSF's strengths.  They state the F-35 was superior to both the A-10 and F-16 during a close air support (CAS) exercise, without going into detail as to what that exercise entailed.  They also remind us that the F-35 is still meeting "test points" like dropping bombs onto target.

This could be a sticky one, however.  The idea of a fighter jet that cannot "turn and burn" as good as an aircraft designed in the 70s seems like a giant step backward to some.  At the very least, it will make people question if an aircraft that is so expensive, and so late, is even worth it. Published: By: Unknown - 4:06 PM

Ketchup time...

Yeah yeah...  I know...  I've been away.  That real life stuff happening again.

I'm not going to apologize too much.  The weather has finally turned nice which means I can actually go outdoors and enjoy a beer instead of hunching over a keyboard.  You can pretty much guess which one I find more enjoyable!

Anyway, time to catch up...

The Rafale gets a (small) boost.

I'm still not exactly sure what's going on...

The Indian Rafale deal has finally come to a...  Middle?

The seemingly perpetual on again/off again nature of negotiations between France and India have led to a token buy of 36 French-built Rafales, down from 126; most of which would be built by HAL, India's indigenous aircraft manufacturer.  India's own government seems confused about how and why this all went down the way it did.

India's air force is simply baffling in its variety, why should its procurement be any different?

The blow has been softened considerable for Dassault, with both Egypt and Qatar each ordering 24 Rafales each.

One year ago, the Rafale had no export sales whatsoever, over the last three months, the ink is drying on contracts for 84 Rafales sold...  Not bad.

The Pentagon has lost its dang mind...

"That'll buff right out..."

So what does The Pentagon do when the F-35 is years late, billions over budget, and still cannot make it over the Atlantic ocean due to a tendency to catch fire on the runway?

ORDER MORE!

Not just a few more, but a "group buy" of 450 airframes over 3 years.  This would enable JSF production to proceed at full steam without annual congressional approval.  There is also the "hope" that such a solid commitment combined with increased production will result in a price drop.  This, despite the fact that F-35 prices have shown no evidence of dropping due to increased production in the past.  

I think we all know the real reason behind this.

Committing to 450 airframes would finally put the JSF past the point of no return, not only for the USA, but for its foreign partners as well.  The F-35 is precariously close to that point already, thanks to a lack of true competition for its largest buyers (USAF, USMC, and RAF).  A bulk buy order at this point would ensure the JSF program's survival by virtue of simple momentum.

Peter MacKay steps out

Former Defense Minister Peter MacKay announced his departure from politics a couple of weeks ago, disappointing editorial cartoonists everywhere.  

To say MacKay has had a colorful career in politics would be an understatement.  His tenure as Defense Minister alone was enough to make him a household name, what with the F-35 purchase (and reset), shipbuilding, Cyclone teething problems, hitching helicopter rides, and the like.  His time as Justice Minister was just as "interesting", being behind controversial laws like C-51 and C-36 prostitution bill.  Add to all that is personal life, being romantically linked with Belinda Stronach and Condoleezza Rice, and you have a character is certainly is larger-than-life.

I had the pleasure of meeting the Honorable Peter MacKay, in a record store of all places, and I must say, he was a very well spoken and intelligent man.  I may not agree with him on many things, but I certainly do respect him.  

It just isn't going to be the same without him.

Hungary grounds its Gripens

Ouch

Both Hungary and Czechoslovakia have grounded their Gripen fleets after two Hungarian Gripen crashes in as many months.  

While the timing of both crashes are uncomfortably close together, there seems to be little connecting the two crashes.  The first crash was caused when the aircraft overran the runway.  The second was caused by a malfunctioning front landing gear.  Neither incident resulted in a fatality, but the pilot in the second crash did suffer a spinal injury.  

Investigations are underway to determine the underlying cause of both crashes.  

Summer slow-down

Given the choice between sitting at a computer or riding my bike...  I'll choose my bike.  

This last winter was miserable here in Nova Scotia so I intend on enjoying this summer to its fullest.  With that in mind, I will only be sporadically updating over the next few months.  I also will not be monitoring comments too closely (I barely have time to do that as it is!).

Things will likely heat up again as the election approaches in the fall.  More so if any of the political parties actually have the guts to take a stand on military procurement (yeah right!).

Until then...  Enjoy your summer.

Published: By: Unknown - 8:06 AM

F-35's engine troubles

It would seem fair to say that the most important component on an airplane is the engine.

UAVs can fly without a cockpit.  Lifting bodies can fly without wings.  Without a method of propulsion, an aircraft is considered a glider.  An underpowered aircraft finds itself few fans.  Unreliable engines end up making the wrong kind of headlines.

So, yeah...  Engines are a big deal.  Especially when it comes to $100 million jet fighters.

When one reads news about the JSF, the fighter that will represent the vast majority of allied airpower for the next 30 to 40 years, headlines describing the F-35 engine as both "unreliable" and "costly" are bound to give one pause.

A recent Pentagon Inspector General report slammed the JSF's Pratt & Whitney F135.  The report accounted of 61 instances where the engine did not meet the Pentagon's regulatory standards during inspection.  These issues were widespread, including project management, software, supply lines, and mechanical issues.

"Based on those nonconformities, we identified systemic findings in the following areas," the Inspector General report notes. "[P]rogram management oversight, critical safety item compliance, continuous improvement, risk management, supplier management, and software quality management."

These engine troubles have severely slowed progress of the F-35 program.  The most glaring example  of which resulted when the entire fleet was grounded following an engine fire last year.  Grounded aircraft cannot make test flights, and those test flights need to be done before the aircraft can be considered operational.

Not only is the P&W F135 unreliable, but it is expensive as well.

The key business case of the JSF was that it would deliver a cutting edge aircraft at an affordable aircraft thanks to economies of scale.  The same economies of scale that have made the F-16 such a success.  In theory, costs would drop sharply as production ramped up.

Both Lockheed Martin and the JSF program office have gone to great pains reassuring the public that costs have begun to drop.  Unfortunately, those cost reductions do not include the F-35's engine.

In 2010, a small batch (16) of F135s were built, each costing $31.8 million.  Two years later that same engine cost $31.3 million, despite production being more than doubled at 37.  Last year, the engine still cost $29.9 million.  For some reason, the cost seems to be stuck at the near-$30 million mark with unit costs rising or falling year-to-year despite higher production.

(I have purposely ignored the outliers:  $21.9M for LRIP 1 and $35.5M for LRIP 3.)

From Defense-Aerospace.com

At roughly $30 million, the F135 would represent over one-third of the F-35's intended cost, $85 million.  Instead, the current cost of an F-35 (with engine) is well over the $200 million (US) mark.  At current prices, it would cost Canada over $13 billion to procure a fleet of 65, well over the $9 billion planned.

Some may blame the F-35's current engine troubles on the cancellation of an alternative engine, the GE F136.  With a monopoly on building JSF engines, Pratt & Whitney have no reason to worry about losing one of the largest (and most profitable) military contracts in modern history.

Oddly enough, the exact same problem arose in the early 80s, when Pratt & Whitney was the sole supplier of the F100 turbofan used in both the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon.  The engine was described as difficult to maintain and subject to turbine and stalling troubles.  When the USAF allowed competition, the resulting "Great Engine War" led to greatly improved engines at a reduced cost.

Perhaps history will repeat itself if the F-35 gets its planned adaptive cycle engine, but one wonders why the same lesson would need to be taught again.


Published: By: Unknown - 7:43 AM