The U.S. has found one with Canada in trying to push an aircraft to replace their CF-18 that isn't lethal, survivable, affordable, sustainable or supportable: the F-35.
In the long term, however, the F-35 is seen as the safest choice. The feeling inside the government is that of the main contenders, the F-35 offers the greatest options over the coming decades to remain technologically up to date, with a number of other countries committed to investing in future upgrades.
None of that is credible. The F-35 can't be the safest choice. Its technology isn't "up to date". How is a non-working helmet-cueing system (the aircraft has no heads-up display) or a failed total solution maintenance method (ALIS) "up to date"? Other Joint Strike Fighter Partner Nation countries like Denmark are starting to understand the high risk with the F-35.
Which comes back to the point: who in the Canadian government is this gullible or worse, paid off? If your job (or future job) requires the F-35, what decision are you going to make on behalf of the Canadian people?
It is interesting in the Globe and the Mail article that someone mentioned a small handful of CF-18s deploying to Poland and that this is another reason the F-35 is needed.
My first question would be, are Canadians really interested in taking on Russia?
In Russia's own back yard, over events that the U.S. stirred up in the first place, for no true national interest of American citizens.
But back to the F-35.
If Canada is going to make the bad decision to buy the F-35, they should at least buy the right one: The F-35B.
Not for its vertical landing requirement (note: the F-35B requirement is for short take-off and vertical landing, not vertical take-off). The short take-off and short landing ability of the F-35B will at least get them into and out of some of its deployable home defense runways that are around 6000 feet with less worry.
Want a comparison with the conventional runway F-35A and short airfields? The F-105. I would hope that the extra wing area lets an F-35A land slower but it won't be by much. And it isn't always Canada Dry.
The F-35B would require more tanker support because of its lower fuel capacity however if we are to believe its specifications, it will have better range performance than the current, legacy CF-18.
The F-35B can't carry as much internal weapon weight. Losing internal carry of 2000lb munitions vs 1000lb munitions isn't a big deal. Most target sets are dead if hit by a precision 500lb munition.
A proven, working F-35B would allow for joint assignments with the United States Marine Corps on their dedicated ships.
I would still recommend, fly-before-you-buy. A full competition among other aircraft that by the way are more survivable in combat. For example the Gripen. It will get in and out of some short airfields and won't cost an arm and a leg. There won't be a real, fully working F-35B out to about 2020 or so.
Canada can keep their CF-18s flying out to 2023-2025. Australia is in a similar state with their legacy F-18s. This is done by more overhaul and a combination of flight-restriction by tail number, depending how much money is to be spent.
And like Canada, Australia made the bad decision to go with the F-35 in the first place without a competition.
Based on "analysis" driven by over-optimism and spin.
Until we see otherwise, indications are that the CF-18 replacement program is still a rigged game.
A working CF-35B or any variant?
I doubt it.
That is why a fly-before-you-by competition is needed.
H/T-Mark
---
-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Aviation Week (ARES blog) F-35 posts (2007 to present)
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)
-A look at the F-35 program's astro-turfing
-F-35 and F-16 cost per flying hour
-Is this aircraft worth over $51B of USMC tac-air funding?
-Combat radius and altitude, A model
-F-35A, noise abatement and airfields and the USAF
-Deceptive marketing practice: F-35 blocks
-The concurrency fraud
-The dung beetle's "it's known" lie
-F-35's air-to-air ability limited
-F-35 Blocks--2006 and today
---
No comments:
Post a Comment