Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
bmacleod
Topic Author
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Sep 21, 2015 1:52 pm

Terrible news for Canadian F-35 fans but looking at cost and other concerns; Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's plans are a sensible move for now....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...rudeau-scrap-f35-halifax-1.3235791
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:48 pm

I get the reasoning that given the weather and the Canadian wilderness, a twin engined fighter might be more desirable.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27094
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Sep 21, 2015 2:58 pm

Good news for St. Louis, I imagine, as the Super Hornet will be the obvious replacement for the CF-18.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:32 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Thread starter):
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's plans are a sensible move for now....

I don't think anyone in Canada was expecting a decision on the F-35 to be made before the next election so this should be no surprise.

Note though that Trudeau's words were for an "open and transparent competition". So when they do actually get around to conducting this competition the F-35 being offered will probably be from full rate production and therefore likely be as cheap per aircraft as its competitors. Life cycle costs would also be the unknown but if Canada is serious about operating the aircraft for 40 years then the F-35, which will likely have two thousand in service globally in that timeframe, will almost certainly be cheaper to maintain.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Good news for St. Louis, I imagine, as the Super Hornet will be the obvious replacement for the CF-18.

As long as Canada actually get moving on the competition. I could see an open competition taking at least 9-12 months to organise, and probably closer to 18 months if they have a competitive fly-off, and that is after the Government actually gives the go ahead. The fear at Boeing will be how long Canada takes. If the Kuwaiti order does not happen and the US Congress finally stops additional SH acquisitions, then Boeing will face a tough decision on keeping the line open. They could chose to build white tails they hope the Canadians will buy or end up paying a lot of workers and suppliers to do nothing until the competition is decided.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:40 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
Life cycle costs would also be the unknown but if Canada is serious about operating the aircraft for 40 years then the F-35, which will likely have two thousand in service globally in that timeframe, will almost certainly be cheaper to maintain.

On 24 November 2011, Norwegian officials estimated the life cycle costs for 52 F-35A for the Norwegian Air force to be $40 billion, in a hearing in the House of Commons of Canada.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:02 pm

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 4):
On 24 November 2011, Norwegian officials estimated the life cycle costs for 52 F-35A for the Norwegian Air force to be $40 billion, in a hearing in the House of Commons of Canada.

Over what time period and with what indexation? I would also be keen to know whether a system upgrade is included in that cost. The expectation for most Air Forces is that the airframe will require a major upgrade within the expected operational life. The concern I have is that if Canada purchases something other than F-35, then the airframe will require not one but two capability upgrades.

As an example, the RAAF HUG program was expected to cost US$2 Billion over a ten year period. I know for certain the program has cost more than that and delivered short on the expected numbers. Hence I question blanket numbers for operating costs over such long periods and whether all contenders/nations are factoring in the same costs to their released figures...
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:16 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 5):
Over what time period



Life cycle 30 years

Quoting Ozair (Reply 5):
I would also be keen to know whether a system upgrade is included in that cost.

They did'nt specify. It was a pritty fresh and apparently not publisized estimate back when the statement was made.

[Edited 2015-09-21 16:32:00]
 
Oroka
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Sep 22, 2015 3:38 am

lol the RCN is still flying Sea Kings that were slated for replacement with new aircraft ordered back in the 93, then canceled by the Liberals, incurring a $500M cancelation penalty.

Guess the RCAF will be stuck with CF-188s for at least another 30 years, though they will be nearly obsolete in the next 10 even with upgrades.

Quoting the program cost as $44B, then not mentioning that covers 40 years of operational costs is bullshit. I would love to see a total cost of what the CF-18 has cost over its lifetime and see how that stacks up against the F-35 in 2015 dollars.

I like the Liberals, but hate their gutting of the Canadian Armed Forces. I hate the Conservatives, but liked the re-equipping and restoring of the CAF.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:38 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 7):
lol the RCN is still flying Sea Kings that were slated for replacement with new aircraft ordered back in the 93, then canceled by the Liberals, incurring a $500M cancelation penalty.

That also excludes the amount of money that was already spent up to the point of cancellation; total amount of money spent on NOT buying helicopters was closer to $2 billion dollars, from my understanding. It was easily one of the worst waste of money the Liberals ever made in recently memory; spend billions of dollars to buy absolutely nothing and then spend billions more to buy less of the exact model of helicopters for search and rescue.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 7):
Guess the RCAF will be stuck with CF-188s for at least another 30 years, though they will be nearly obsolete in the next 10 even with upgrades.

If they can fly that long; remember, our CF-18's are essentially early model F/A-18 A/B's. Early production aircraft as well; we took delivery at around the same time delivery to the USN and USMC started. Lots of hours and cycles on the airframes as a result.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
Note though that Trudeau's words were for an "open and transparent competition". So when they do actually get around to conducting this competition the F-35 being offered will probably be from full rate production and therefore likely be as cheap per aircraft as its competitors. Life cycle costs would also be the unknown but if Canada is serious about operating the aircraft for 40 years then the F-35, which will likely have two thousand in service globally in that timeframe, will almost certainly be cheaper to maintain.

Especially considering the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat is sitting on a report that estimates the costs of all of the options and the best way forward. My understanding is that the conclusion the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat has come to points towards F-35 as the best long term option.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 3):
I could see an open competition taking at least 9-12 months to organise, and probably closer to 18 months if they have a competitive fly-off, and that is after the Government actually gives the go ahead.

Easily longer. Maybe even 3 years until a decision is made, and that will be an expedited situation. Boeing can't wait that long for a decision to be made.

And good luck to the Liberals getting something into service that is actually less money than the F-35.

Optimizing Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen for RCAF requirements will have to be funded wholly by DND, and it won't be cheap. Super Hornets are just as expensive as any Euro competitor, and will cost more in the long run.

Not to mention the damage done to the Canadian aerospace industry as well by the Liberal's plan, of which BOTH the NDP and Conservatives agree upon. No wonder the Liberals are starting to slide in the polls, and Trudeau might well be in the fight of his political life as he only has a 5% margin over the NDP candidate in his own riding.

[Edited 2015-09-22 01:38:36]
 
queb
Posts: 1024
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:25 am

It's not only about money, it's also about capabilities and nobody is impressed by the F-35 right now, except for the price.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:55 am

Quoting queb (Reply 9):
It's not only about money, it's also about capabilities and nobody is impressed by the F-35 right now, except for the price.

The list of Air Forces that have ordered the F-35 speaks for itself, Australia, Italy, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Korea, Turkey, UK and the US.

All well respected, capable and competent. I trust these nations, who have all seen the classified info on the jet and, bar the US, could have chosen something different but didn't...
 
queb
Posts: 1024
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Sep 22, 2015 11:46 am

Quoting Ozair (Reply 10):
Australia, Italy, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Korea, Turkey, UK and the US.

Because most of them have put money in the F-35 since the beginning.

A report from Rideau Institute and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives state that life cycle cost (40 years) could reach $126 billion and will be be at the best $56 billion. And those numbers come from a 2012 report, which does not take current exchange rate in account...

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...ch-126-billion-according-to-report
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:47 pm

Quoting queb (Reply 11):
Because most of them have put money in the F-35 since the beginning.

Japan and Korea both ran competitions and selected the F-35. Israel could have chosen any US aircraft it wanted, including F-15s and F-16s to argument their fleet, but they didn't. They chose the F-35 and their endorsement speaks volumes!

Quoting queb (Reply 11):
A report from Rideau Institute and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives state that life cycle cost (40 years) could reach $126 billion and will be be at the best $56 billion.

Which is frankly a load of rubbish. I just read the report which is available here,

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sit..._That_Ate%20_Canadian_Military.pdf

There are a whole bunch of ridiculous assumptions and comparisons made in the article. The author refuses to acknowledge that most of the costs he has identified, such as the inflation and sustainment costs, would be attributed to any airframe that Canada purchased. It also takes no position on the threat that Canada may face.

The reality is the F-35 will be the most cost effective platform of any of the options. It will have an active production line long after all the other options have ended as well as a larger production run that the rest of the competitors combined. Look at the last 50 years of military fighter aircraft. Those that stay in production longer have lower operational and upgrade costs as well as usually having significantly more users.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11181
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Sep 22, 2015 5:31 pm

There have been several engine flame-outs or loss of thrust/engine in the F-16 to warrant a serious look at single engine aircraft operating in remote areas/over large bodies of water. These engine losses include the original PW F-100-PW-200/-220E, to some of the latest developed engines like the GE F-110-GE-100/-129/-132/-229 engines. There have been many twin engine fighters that have lost one engine and safely recovered on the remaining operating engine.

Canada, as all of you know has vast areas of no population and no recoverable airfields. In fact, some 94% of the Canadian population lives within 250 miles of the US-Canada boarder.

Should a RCAF F-35 loose its one engine while patrolling these areas, or trying to intercept Russian Tu-95s that have flown very close to, if not within Canadian airspace, these last few years, the expensive F-35 will be lost, and the pilot, assuming he punches out, may be days away from SAR forces. Not a good position to be in in January and February in Northern Canada.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 10):
The list of Air Forces that have ordered the F-35 speaks for itself, Australia, Italy, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Korea, Turkey, UK and the US.

None of those countries have the vast wilderness Canada has. Yes, Australia has the outback, and an F-35 that looses an engine there will be lost, unless the pilot can somehow land on the desert. The pilot is also hours from rescue, not days.

Yup, Norway also has a very cold northern region, but it also has all those highway runways up there.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:46 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Yup, Norway also has a very cold northern region, but it also has all those highway runways up there.

Well, Norway also needs to keep an eye on an ocean area 7 times the landmass of Norway ...
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:28 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
There have been several engine flame-outs or loss of thrust/engine in the F-16 to warrant a serious look at single engine aircraft operating in remote areas/over large bodies of water. These engine losses include the original PW F-100-PW-200/-220E, to some of the latest developed engines like the GE F-110-GE-100/-129/-132/-229 engines. There have been many twin engine fighters that have lost one engine and safely recovered on the remaining operating engine.

While there is a small increase in class A incidents related to engine issues between single and twin engine fighter aircraft, stats are available here

hxxp://www.afsec.af.mil/aviationsafetydivision/enginestatistics.asp

it is somewhat deceptive as the incidents are not classified as in-flight or not. For example, the only F-35 class A mishap was engine related but occurred on the ground. Engine related class A mishaps can still cause significant issues or total loss whether in flight or on the ground irrespective of whether the aircraft has two engines or one.

Engine reliability continues to improve. That is evidenced by the above linked report which shows that for later model F-15 and F-16s as well as F-22 engine related class A mishaps continues to drop.

What is ironic is that there are significantly more class A mishaps caused by aircrew than material issues. Quote below taken from the 2012 Air Force Safety Centre annual report,

Human factors continued as the leading cause in aviation mishaps. The Air Force had 20 Class A flight mishaps (a rate of 1.03 per 100,000 flight hours) with 10 destroyed aircraft and 9 fatalities. Human factors played a significant role in 18 of the 20 (90%) Class A flight mishaps. A review of Class A aviation mishaps over the past 10 years demonstrates that, on average, 83% were attributed to human factors

hxxp://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-130523-033.pdf

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Canada, as all of you know has vast areas of no population and no recoverable airfields.

If single engine operations really were significantly more hazardous to nations operating in remote areas then Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Japan and other nations would have long ago switched to twin engine aircraft only. They have not...

Note: change xx to tt in links to load them
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:49 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
There have been several engine flame-outs or loss of thrust/engine in the F-16 to warrant a serious look at single engine aircraft operating in remote areas/over large bodies of water. These engine losses include the original PW F-100-PW-200/-220E, to some of the latest developed engines like the GE F-110-GE-100/-129/-132/-229 engines. There have been many twin engine fighters that have lost one engine and safely recovered on the remaining operating engine.

The Norwegians, the Japanese, and the USAF for that matter are all comfortable flying single engined F-16's (or F-16 derivatives in the case of Japan) over large bodies of water. The Norwegians are even more comfortable in flying F-16's above the Arctic Circle as well.

Also, single engine recovery of a twin engined aircraft is at times very doubtful; in Canadian service, the number of times a CF-18 has managed to recover after a engine failure is a round 1, and the pilot in that instance got lucky; he was already very close to an airfield when that happened and was able to nurse the aircraft to a landing.

More than likely, a situation in which a twin engined fighter will loose an engine is a situation where BOTH engines will go out, and in that case, it doesn't matter if you have one engine or a million engines, the aircraft becomes a glider. Either that, or the aircraft catches fire, and the pilot will need to bail out anyways.

Another thing to note: engine procedures differ for single engine fighters verses twin engined fighters, even with the same powerplant. According to the Dash One, for the F-16, if there is an engine warning light, the procedure is for the pilot to reduce engine power and maintain the power level at a fixed setting until the pilot is able to recover at base. For the F-15, the instructions is for the affected engine to be shut off, and for the pilot to recover at base, even for the same issue.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 12):
Which is frankly a load of rubbish. I just read the report which is available here,

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sit...y.pdf

The Rideau Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives are a bunch of hacks. Seriously. For one, they are both one and the same, and the people that run both are anti-military ultra-left wing idealogues.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 12):
The reality is the F-35 will be the most cost effective platform of any of the options. It will have an active production line long after all the other options have ended as well as a larger production run that the rest of the competitors combined. Look at the last 50 years of military fighter aircraft. Those that stay in production longer have lower operational and upgrade costs as well as usually having significantly more users.

Correct, and Canadian industry will also get a chance at major, long term industrial opportunities as well. Buy anything else, and it's just 100% of the contract value, which could be virtually anything. From my experience working with companies dealing with IRB offsets, I've seen things like hotel and entertainment receipts being used to help pad the value being claimed as being invested back into Canada to help meet IRB offsets. Seriously.

With F-35, companies like Messier-Dowty will be making thousands of landing gear sets for the global F-35 fleet, plus spares for the life of the aircraft. CAE will be supplying all of the full motion flight simulators and ongoing supply of spares to the international user market for the F-35. That's a rock-solid long term opportunity that any company would LOVE to have. Large production volumes plus a contract that will last for decades, providing a very steady revenue stream.

[Edited 2015-09-22 20:50:09]
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:07 am

If you look at the commercial side and the capabilities offered by F-35 it is without alternatives. I do see the feeling of safety an additional engines gives you, though.
 
queb
Posts: 1024
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Sep 23, 2015 10:06 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):
With F-35, companies like Messier-Dowty will be making thousands of landing gear sets for the global F-35 fleet, plus spares for the life of the aircraft. CAE will be supplying all of the full motion flight simulators and ongoing supply of spares to the international user market for the F-35. That's a rock-solid long term opportunity that any company would LOVE to have. Large production volumes plus a contract that will last for decades, providing a very steady revenue stream.

Messier-Dowty doesn't make any F-35 landing gear. Right now, there is only $500 millions in contract for canadian companies and it will be up to $10 billion of the programme lifespan if we order the F-35... Even maintenance will be done in the US. Every military procurement contract requires at least 50% of canadian content (in value)... except for the F-35 (at least on the agreement that was canceled).

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ad-ad.nsf/vwapj/Fall_report_2013.pdf/$file/Fall_report_2013.pdf
 
Oroka
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:33 pm

I would think that if the USN was comfortable with the concept of a single engine fighter as the backbone of their air arm right from the get go (X-32 and the X-35), out over vast expanses of water and hostile territory, maybe they view the additional survivability of two engines minimal enough that it is not a enough of a benefit.

I'm under the understanding that the sensors monitoring the F-35 are significantly more advanced than 4.5 Gen fighters and can often identify the defective part earlier, even before failure, and even communicate this fact back to base so it can be delt with quickly. I would think this would mitigate some of the repainting single engine out risks.


Also, the national post has 2 reasonable fair articles about Trudeau and the F-35. First discussing scrapping the F-35 in relation to the sea king debacle ant the other actually mentions that the purchase price of the F-35 itself is $9B CAD.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/new...udeaus-f-35-stealth-fighter-pledge

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/new...-with-f-35-move&pubdate=2015-09-23
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Wed Sep 23, 2015 10:23 pm

Quoting queb (Reply 11):
A report from Rideau Institute and Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives state that life cycle cost (40 years) could reach $126 billion and will be be at the best $56 billion.

Lets see the same report for a Super Hornet, Gripen, Eurofighter or Rafale. Doing it alone on the F-35 is asinine in itself.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:21 am

Quoting Oroka (Reply 19):
I would think that if the USN was comfortable with the concept of a single engine fighter as the backbone of their air arm right from the get go (X-32 and the X-35), out over vast expanses of water and hostile territory, maybe they view the additional survivability of two engines minimal enough that it is not a enough of a benefit.

Or all pilots having flown the A-4, A-7 and other single engine planes from the carriers have long retired and the institutional knowledge was lost.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12856
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:57 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
Yup, Norway also has a very cold northern region, but it also has all those highway runways up there.

'You're thinking of Sweden, as far as I know Norway never built any highway runways, they don't even have anything resembling a highway (as you would know it) that far North.
 
boeingfixer
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 2:02 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Sep 24, 2015 10:15 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 16):
Also, single engine recovery of a twin engined aircraft is at times very doubtful; in Canadian service, the number of times a CF-18 has managed to recover after a engine failure is a round 1, and the pilot in that instance got lucky; he was already very close to an airfield when that happened and was able to nurse the aircraft to a landing

So you're telling us here that in 32 years of service the entire CF-18 fleet has only had 1 single engine recovery to base. I call a resounding BS on that one. A quick look at the RCAF flight safety site shows that since September 25, 1997 there has been 2 single engine landings of the CF-18 fleet that required a Flight Safety Investigation. Flight Safety only investigates events where there is damage to aircraft or injury to personnel so these don't include precautionary shut downs and successful RTB. There are several DND reports that cover bird ingestion on the CF-18 fleet as well.

I also have a good friend whose father was a CF-18 pilot who has more than 800 hours of flying the Hornet in West Germany. During his time flying in Europe he performed 2 single engine landings due to precautionary engine shut downs.

I'll guarantee to you that there have been dozens of successful CF-18 single engine recoveries over 32 years.

Edit:

Just thought I'd add a link to a Flight Safety Investigation that states:

"False oil pressure indications have resulted in approximately 15 single-engine landings over the past five years."

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/...fety-investigation-report/hlouagpk

Ciao,

John

[Edited 2015-09-24 15:18:52]

[Edited 2015-09-24 15:19:34]
Cheers, John YYC
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Fri Sep 25, 2015 5:17 am

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 23):
So you're telling us here that in 32 years of service the entire CF-18 fleet has only had 1 single engine recovery to base. I call a resounding BS on that one. A quick look at the RCAF flight safety site shows that since September 25, 1997 there has been 2 single engine landings of the CF-18 fleet that required a Flight Safety Investigation. Flight Safety only investigates events where there is damage to aircraft or injury to personnel so these don't include precautionary shut downs and successful RTB. There are several DND reports that cover bird ingestion on the CF-18 fleet as well.

I also have a good friend whose father was a CF-18 pilot who has more than 800 hours of flying the Hornet in West Germany. During his time flying in Europe he performed 2 single engine landings due to precautionary engine shut downs.

I'll guarantee to you that there have been dozens of successful CF-18 single engine recoveries over 32 years.

If you have better and more reliable information than me, thank you for correcting me then.

But my point remains true; having two engines verses one engine does not guarantee improved safety. See the USAF's engine-related Class A mishap rates between the F-16 powered by the F100-PW-229 engine verses the F-15E powered by the exact same engine:
F-16 rate:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150727-032.pdf

F-15E rate:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150727-029.pdf

The F-16's rate, as noted in the above document is a grand total of ZERO engine related mishaps compared to the F-15E's 5 over roughly the same period of time. Before you comment and say the F-15's powered by the F100-PW-229 engine are all F-15E's, and are all flying low level flights, and thus more susceptible to bird strikes and FOD, the USAF's data specifically excludes mishaps caused by FOD, birdstrike, or failure of support systems external to the engine.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Fri Sep 25, 2015 6:19 pm

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 23):
Flight Safety only investigates events where there is damage to aircraft or injury to personnel so these don't include precautionary shut downs and successful RTB.

That is incorrect. I've filled out the paperwork.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:10 pm

Quoting boeingfixer (Reply 23):

Hell, there was a single-engine recovery to base featured in the TV documentary Jetstream...
 
JohnM
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:38 pm

I don't have any fancy studies to point out. However I flew in single engine helicopters over water and forested areas with no suitable landing zones. I didn't like it one bit. Especially at night, IMC, and at low altitudes. When we transitioned to twin engined birds, I really liked having that other engine along for the ride. Data be dammed.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sat Sep 26, 2015 4:02 pm

The yearly flying hours for our fighters up north is 1%, there aren't any "patrolling" missions. Operating out of FOBs is extremely expensive and if there isn't a reason to be up there, we aren't. Things like ground based radar were invented years ago so the need for fighters to tool around in the high Arctic is null. Extremely low flight hours along with low probability of modern engine failure equals a next to zero chance of complete engine failure and loss of an aircraft up north. The pundits can spin it all they want but there won't be any shortage of pilots lining up to fly the F-35 up north, despite the single-engine death trap.  
 
bmacleod
Topic Author
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Oct 15, 2015 5:23 pm

Well if the polls are right, it looks like the Canadian F-35's fate is sealed unless Lockheed Martin can "make an offer they can't refuse.”

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/elect...berals-hit-election-high-1.2610732

I'm putting more    on Boeing's F/A-18E Super Hornet.

[Edited 2015-10-15 10:25:31]
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 29):
Well if the polls are right, it looks like the Canadian F-35's fate is sealed unless Lockheed Martin can "make an offer they can't refuse.”

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/elect...10732

You've just posted the same story as your first post in this thread, was that intentional as I can't see a reason for re-linking the same article?

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 29):
I'm putting more on Boeing's F/A-18E Super Hornet.

If an open competition is run, the Super Hornet continues to be the least likely to be selected. It might be the lowest cost option but unless a new Canadian Government makes an off the shelf purchase without a tender, which from the start has been the basis for the argument against the F-35, the Super Hornet won't be in production by the time Canada could make a choice. Even more now the expected Kuwaiti order has not materialised.

As already posted above, the longer this process takes the more likely an F-35 win will be, based on both affordability and availability.
 
bmacleod
Topic Author
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:18 pm

Quoting Ozair (Reply 30):
You've just posted the same story as your first post in this thread, was that intentional as I can't see a reason for re-linking the same article?

Not exactly; the Conservatives were leading in the polls when I started this thread...

[Edited 2015-10-16 07:19:23]
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Fri Oct 16, 2015 4:16 pm

Rafale will look great in Canadian Colours
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:19 am

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 31):

Not exactly; the Conservatives were leading in the polls when I started this thread...

The problem is more of government treaties and legislation that would prevent the excluding of certain bidders from bidding, like how the Liberals want. You can't have a non-open open competition for the procurement of anything in Canada for the government; there are severe legal and financial repercussions for trying to circumvent the process, like how the Liberals have stated publicly they want to do.

Trade lawyers will have a field day with the government, as there are two avenues if Lockheed Martin is blocked from bidding: NAFTA via the court system, the Agreement on Government Procurement and the Agreement on Internal Trade via the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Both legally enforceable on the government, and both could order the government to re-compete the procurement, and award damages.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:02 am

Removing F-35 from the bidder list is quite easy if they chose to adjust the requirements. Just add a "2 engines required due to long operating times over inhospitable terrain" requirement and F-35 is excluded.
 
Ozair
Posts: 5169
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:27 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 34):
Removing F-35 from the bidder list is quite easy if they chose to adjust the requirements. Just add a "2 engines required due to long operating times over inhospitable terrain" requirement and F-35 is excluded.

That would work politically but I doubt the RCAF would agree to such a stipulation. They know what they want.

If the Liberals win, the point of the competition should be to find the best aircraft for the RCAF for the next 40 years. The competition would surely cover both operational capability and sustainment cost. On either metric, the F-35 has to be very competitive...
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:00 am

In a fair competition aimed at getting the best plane for the next 40 years, the F-35 is without any alternative. But the political will might mean that a lesser solution will be aimed at and the 2-engines requirement would be a save solution to exclude the F-35.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:31 pm

There are other countries with rugged terrain and large oceans to cover, who does not seem to have a problem with one engine .... : Norway, Australia etc
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Oct 19, 2015 5:44 pm

It was not about technical needs, but a legal way how you could write the requirements and make sure that the F-35 is excluded.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5832
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:55 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 38):
It was not about technical needs, but a legal way how you could write the requirements and make sure that the F-35 is excluded.

I undertsand that, but people will also understand that that reasoning is bulls**t
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:12 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 34):
Removing F-35 from the bidder list is quite easy if they chose to adjust the requirements. Just add a "2 engines required due to long operating times over inhospitable terrain" requirement and F-35 is excluded.

That requirement can very easily be challenged and squashed in court and/or the Trade Tribunal. They will both be asking why is that requirement there, and can it be demonstrated that having two engines is empirically required to conduct the mission as requested, or is there another way to meet the intended purpose of the requirement.

All Lockheed Martin will have to do is point out that Norway and the US routinely and regularly operate single engined fighters in both Alaska and above the Arctic Circle, and the Japanese also operate a single engined fighter over the North Pacific, all without a single mishap.
 
User avatar
SAS A340
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 5:59 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:13 am

Quoting bmacleod (Thread starter):
Terrible news for Canadian F-35 fans but looking at cost and other concerns; Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's

Seems like Justin Trudeau took the win in Canada.....
It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4020
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 3:49 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):

The government doing the purchasing sets the purchase requirements. To have the supplier take the government to court to challenge the requirement specs based on other countries procurement practices would have LM laughed out of court. Maybe you should have the case tried in Texas.. where you might get the answer you seek but no way to enforce it.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:18 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
The government doing the purchasing sets the purchase requirements.

The issue is that the requirement must be justifiable and reasonable. You need to demonstrate the intended purpose of the requirement, and that the method used to achieve the intended purpose is the sole way to achieve the aim.

Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
To have the supplier take the government to court to challenge the requirement specs based on other countries procurement practices would have LM laughed out of court.

Nope. In Canada, open competitions must be that; open. Otherwise, courts and the CITT will rule against the government; for example, a while back, Polaris Inflatable Boats filed a complaint with the CITT against the DND regarding the sole source award of contract to Zodiac regarding a purchase of rigid hull inflatable rubber boats for the military. The CITT ruled that Polaris' complaint was valid and remedied costs to Polaris, and an order directing the DND and Public Works that " procurements for DND be conducted in a competitive manner, incorporating any compatibility requirements in the specifications and/or evaluation criteria."

Another case comes to mind as well: Symtron Systems Inc filed a complaint with the CITT regarding the DND's awarding of a contract of construction of two fire fighter training systems for the Navy to International Code Fire Services Inc.. The CITT found that the government's decision to award the contract to International Code Fire Services was invalid, as the awarding of the contract contravened NAFTA in denying Symtron the right to natural justice, and that upon further review, the Symtron bid would and should have been the winner of the procurement contract. Again, the CITT awarded Symtron damages.

One famous case is Novell Canada's case againts the DND regarding the purchase of Microsoft Windows NT licenses and 12,000 client access licences from Microsoft a few years back. The CITT directed the DND to dispose of the licenses it already acquired from Microsoft outside of the federal government, re-compete the contract, and compensate Novell Canada for the damages it suffered as a result.

Quoting kanban (Reply 42):
Maybe you should have the case tried in Texas.. where you might get the answer you seek but no way to enforce it.

The Agreement on International Trade and the Government Contracting Regulations is legally binding on the federal government; otherwise, for the federal government to ignore a long-standing agreement with the provinces will not go down well with the provinces.

[Edited 2015-10-19 21:18:41]

[Edited 2015-10-19 21:26:16]

[Edited 2015-10-19 21:27:57]
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:14 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):
That requirement can very easily be challenged and squashed in court and/or the Trade Tribunal. They will both be asking why is that requirement there, and can it be demonstrated that having two engines is empirically required to conduct the mission as requested, or is there another way to meet the intended purpose of the requirement.

All Lockheed Martin will have to do is point out that Norway and the US routinely and regularly operate single engined fighters in both Alaska and above the Arctic Circle, and the Japanese also operate a single engined fighter over the North Pacific, all without a single mishap.

There I disagree. It is very hard to kill a safety related requirement, especially if this requirement does not hinder a fair and open competition. It might mean the Lockmart is out, but it still means that Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter and the Russian could bid.

It will be especially hard as Canada could easily prove that they operated 2-engine fighters since the Canuck.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:02 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 44):

There I disagree. It is very hard to kill a safety related requirement, especially if this requirement does not hinder a fair and open competition. It might mean the Lockmart is out, but it still means that Boeing, Dassault, Eurofighter and the Russian could bid.

Incorrect. You need to demonstrate the intended purpose or objective of the requirement. Any requirement can be challenged and struck down if you cannot demonstrate that the requirement is the only way to achieve a specific purpose or objective. Practically any requirement, even a core requirement can be struck down if the courts and the CITT views that the objective unfairly prevents other bidders from being considered, and that the specific requirement as originally written is not the only way to achieve such objective.

If your objective or intended purpose is to achieve a certain level of safety, and Lockheed Martin can demonstrate that it can accomplish the level of safety required with the F-35, then the requirement will get struck down and the DND and PWGSC will be forced to re-evaluate the competition.

Former CDS Rick Hiller said this in regards to specifications in Parliamentary Committee a while back:

Quote:

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, when we started walking through specifications, what we would use in the past was detailed specifications for every conceivable part of a piece of equipment, in order to get something.

For example, for an aircraft, we said we need a wing so big, wheels so big, the aircraft had to be so long and have so many doors and do certain things—and all in great detail. In fact, in the Maritime helicopter project, for example, those specifications went to 17,000 pages.

We looked at that and asked why we were doing it. We were actually doing it to say that we needed an aircraft that could carry a certain size of load, by weight and capacity; could carry it at a certain speed, because you have a certain timeframe that you want to close; could carry it thus and thus far; and when it got there could land on a certain kind of airstrip—perhaps a rough, unprepared, short airstrip in the middle of the north of Canada, or in the middle of Afghanistan—and be able to unload the equipment without being dependent upon outside equipment that might not be on the ground. In short, it had to be self-contained.

We asked why we didn't actually just say that we need an aircraft to deliver this kind of weight, of a size that fits the major equipment we have or the normal containers that we have now and are developing for use of transport; that we need to carry it this far and this quickly and be able to do those things on the ground.

We decided that by far the best, the simplest, and the clearest process was to go out and say: “If you can do this, bring your aircraft. We don't care what kind it is. We actually don't care how big the wing is. We don't care about anything else, as long as it can do this.” Then we judge which is the best—the cheapest, or whatever—if more than one show up.


That's why today you see a lot less challenges to defence purchases from other vendors today compared to the past. We've moved from technical specifications to performance-based specification procurement. This is the exact same process that the US and UK use as well, and it results in faster procurement, better match between requirement and product, and lower costs.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:29 am

The procurement guidelines from Canada clearly point out that the buyer can specify technical requirements. Obviously the exact wording would not be "needs to have 2 engines" but "needs to be able to reach a diversion airfield XXXkm away with one engine not operational".

For Canada it is very easy to write the requirements in a way that no court would remove such a requirement. And btw. the fact that other countries operate single engines fighter in similar roles is not enough, which can be seen by any tender for rescue helicopters where in the US single engine solutions are accepted, while in Europe they are not, due to local laws.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:49 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 46):
The procurement guidelines from Canada clearly point out that the buyer can specify technical requirements. Obviously the exact wording would not be "needs to have 2 engines" but "needs to be able to reach a diversion airfield XXXkm away with one engine not operational".

Nope. The requirement in your case that would be allowed would be "be able to demonstrate engine reliability of X". Your wording and methodology would result in a challenge by a bidder.

In short, you need to demonstrate the core objective of your requirement. So what is the core objective of your engine out requirement? Is it to achieve a certain level of engine reliability? If so, can that reliability be demonstrated with only a single engine?

Remember: having two engines is not a surefire way of reducing accidents by engine related mishaps. The USAF's own numbers show that in an apples to apples comparison; see my earlier post on this:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 24):
But my point remains true; having two engines verses one engine does not guarantee improved safety. See the USAF's engine-related Class A mishap rates between the F-16 powered by the F100-PW-229 engine verses the F-15E powered by the exact same engine:
F-16 rate:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150727-032.pdf

F-15E rate:
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150727-029.pdf

The F-16's rate, as noted in the above document is a grand total of ZERO engine related mishaps compared to the F-15E's 5 over roughly the same period of time. Before you comment and say the F-15's powered by the F100-PW-229 engine are all F-15E's, and are all flying low level flights, and thus more susceptible to bird strikes and FOD, the USAF's data specifically excludes mishaps caused by FOD, birdstrike, or failure of support systems external to the engine.

In short same engine, one in an aircraft that only has one, the other in an aircraft that has two. And the twin-engined fighter has more accidents related to engine reliability than the single engined fighter powered by the same engine.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:05 am

Which would mean that you would have to explain how the same engine is more reliable in the F-16 than it is in the F-15E, otherwise you just have shown a statistical coincidence.

You can only counter this requirement by showing that your engine has a design failure rate that is 50% of the engine used in the twin engine fighter.

The court would than have to decide if such a low failure rate is excessive or not. Considering the Canadian environment it could go either way.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3431
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Canadian Liberal Leader Plan To Scrap F-35

Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:57 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 48):
Which would mean that you would have to explain how the same engine is more reliable in the F-16 than it is in the F-15E, otherwise you just have shown a statistical coincidence.

Different engine maintenance methods and standards, and operating procedures; that's the key. For example, an engine warning light in a F-15 would specify that the engine must be shut down immediately according to procedures, but in an F-16, the instructions would be to reduce thrust, and do not make any large throttle changes until you can safely recover.

There are also some differences between how the engine is configured between the F-15E and the F-16, but it's fairly minor.

Also, note that the F-35 is being tested to both USN and USAF reliability requirements, and the USN's requirements are more stringent than the USAF's because of the nature of their environment (operating high performance fighters out at sea with no easy landing strip in salt water conditions).

The only requirement that would realistically fly in terms of the engine reliability specifications would be "Engine(s) must have a demonstrated reliability equal or better than the CF-18".

Beyond that, Justin Trudeau might have to ditch his promise to not buy the F-35, because of the other stuff he has promised he would do that WILL make a potential phone call to Barack Obama a very difficult call indeed, not to mention how other NATO leaders would react. He might just back down and say an open competition would be held. In that case, cost, capabilities, and industrial benefits would be the major deciding factors, and the F-35 will have an edge on all three areas.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos