Canada Buys Super Hornets

Good. The F35 is a white elephant.
The Super Hornet is a capable and much cheaper alternative, sharing some commonality with the CF18.
'Member when the reason Canada bought the CF18, was vast expanses/seas, which needed a two engine craft-
So why was the F35 ever even considered, if we need a "two" engine plane from the 1980 get-go

 

The F/A 18 is a fine, if somewhat elderly airframe and you can retro fit such only to a point. Also replacement parts may become a issue, certainly you can fabricate what you need in small batch's, but that can get expensive after awhile. Considering Canada's air defense needs however its probably a good buy considering there are very few real threats to be deterred.

The multi role aircraft is the holy grail of aircraft design. We were here before with the F-4 Phantom II which was intended, and largely did replace, most types then in service with all three branch's of the US military. When deployed initially it was far from the perfect product and needed modifications to fulfill the individual mission. It actually did have a rather good service history as it worked out, in part due to superior pilots and to superior work around's/improvisations.

Frankly I am not sure the Marines 'need' a VSTOL attack jet. It could be useful yes, but in a questionable air superiority environment Carrier's are going to remain on station until a land airfield becomes operational if Air Force jets could not be supported.

Eliminate the Marine requirement and you have a much cheaper aircraft to deploy with fewer bugs to be worked out.

I will now retreat to a secret, undisclosed location to await the inevitable Marine incoming.

 

How do you eliminate the marine requirement?

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/price-military-aircraft-per-flight-hour-2016-8?r=US&IR=T&IR=T/#fa-18f-8

Lists F-35A cost per flight hour at $28,455 USD,
the F-22 at $33,538 USD
and the F/A-18e at $10,507 USD.

None of which compare to the low cost of operating the JAS39 Gripen at $4,700 USD.
http://http://www.stratpost.com/gripen-operational-cost-lowest-of-all-western-fighters-janes

The F-22 is the dream, but less wealthy nations have to keep pilots in the air to keep them skilled. Besides which, a savings of $18,000 USD / hour buys quite a lot of other toys for the Canadians...

 

I've never understood why one would buy a carrier plane if you aren't going to operate them from carriers. Australia uses them to. And Switzerland?? Why not F-16s and save some money?

Modern stuff doesn't interest me much so I could have it all wrong

 

At the time of the original consideration, the Australians considered the F-16 an immature product and were concerned about engine reliability. It had a shorter range radar than the F-18, Further, the F-16 had no beyond visual range capabilities then, nor long range anti-ship missiles. Any aggressor to Australia needs to cross the sea. The robustness built into Carrier-planes also appealed, as many airfields in northern Australia were considered rudimentary.

Fundamentally, it was the robustness and maturity of the F-18 which won out.

The Swiss story is macabre, and sordid story is still ongoing...

 

The FA18 was chosen because of the reliability of two engines and because we wanted a single type to complete varied missions...

 

This chap not happy about it.
http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/former-fighter-pilot-turned-mp-criticizes-federal-decision-to-buy-super-hornets

 

Politics.

The Air Force variant is a straight forward aircraft design that operates off runway's or in a pinch roadway's.

The Naval variant is pretty much the same externally but stronger internally to absorb catapults and deck landings and equipped with a tailhook for landings.

For the Marines it is equipped with a variable vectored thrust capacity to allow it to launch and recover like a Harrier. This would allow them to operate from large landingships and from unprepared or lightly prepared ground. This is a expensive modification to make.

Prior to the advent of VSTOL technology the Marines settled for standard naval variant aircraft, but they got hooked on Harriers and they have a powerful lobby in Congress. In some ways it would be like telling the Army they could not have Main Battle Tanks or the Navy no Nuclear CV's. Unthinkable.

Thing is how often has the Marines needed a air superiority fighter in the last few generations.

 

With multiple battle fronts opening up it would be good to have a self sufficient fighting force...air/sea/ground...eliminates the politics if you have one head of the battle triad?

 

The highest additional cost (based upon 2012 estimate) is only associated with the Marine STOVL variant the "B" model. The Navy/Marine Corps "C" Model for carrier ops is the next most expensive (was previously the costliest type) with the Airforce "A" model the lightest and cheapest version. The USMC "B" model was actually the first model to go operational.
The AV-8 Harrier is/was a very important CAS asset during all the conflicts since it's introduction. It is often operated from FARP's (Forward Arming and Refueling Point) along with AH-1w/1z to increase sortie rates. It has also been used to replace carrier based air for air superiority missions flying from an amphibious assault ship when a Fleet carrier is not available.
-General Norman Schwarzkopf later named the AV-8B among the seven weapons—along with the F-117 Nighthawk and AH-64 Apache—that played a crucial role in the war. (first Gulf War)
-On 20 March 2011, USMC AV-8Bs were launched from USS Kearsarge in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, enforcing the UN no-fly zone over Libya.They carried out airstrikes on Sirte on 5 April 2011.Multiple AV-8Bs were involved in the defense of a downed F-15E pilot, attacking approaching Libyans prior to the pilot's extraction by a MV-22 Osprey.
Don't underestimate the value of being able to operate a fighter/ground attack jet off a short deck until you can get a big deck on station, and the Airforce doesn't really embrace the CAS mission preferring to focus on the more glamorous roles.

The Airforce "A" version is a cheaper variant, but the Marines got the "bugs" worked out of their version before the Airforce did theirs. The "C" version has a number of issues directly related to the requirements for an aircraft operating off a big deck carrier. The Marines are buying "C" versions also because they traditionally make up portion of some carrier air wings. (deploy on from three to five of the ten active carriers depending upon intended operations).

It also has larger wing and tail surfaces to enhance low speed operations.

They've been called upon to perform that mission in virtually every operation the Navy or Airforce has had to perform the same mission. The Marine contingent of carrier air wings is an F/A squadron capable of and being employed air defense or attack.

And prior to the advent of the helicopter the military settled for fixed wing aircraft, but once you're used to the additional capabilities a rotary wing aircraft provides you don't want to give it up. The AV-8 is/was one of the most effective CAS platforms, had one of the higher ready rates, had the highest sortie rate, and was/is available in situations where no other fixed wing aircraft is, such as where we don't have friendly air bases in close proximity or no big deck available. There have been numerous times when the small deck carriers (amphibious assault ships) have operated in conjunction with the big decks to provide an even more robust air capability.

The problem I see with Australia acquiring the F-35 is that it is only marginal in an air superiority role. They are intended to be employed with the F-22. If you're only acquiring one or the other you're going to be deficient in one capability or the other.

Quote General Mike Hostage, head of Air Combat Command, USAF:

"Hostage also commented that the F-35 would be "irrelevant" without the F-22 fleet being viable as the F-35 was not an air superiority fighter,and that an F-35 pilot who enters a dogfight has made a mistake."

 

I never get this sentiment from an airforce.

To me, the whole raison d'etre of an airforce, is CAS. The rest is just in consequence of, or supporting that.

 

Like the A10, why couldn't the Marines simply extend the AV8. Having the ability to take off from unprepared strips is a huge dealio.
Are the F35's able to "viff" in combat like the AV's?

 

I figured I was in for some counter battery fire on this .

First I do not think I'm being anti-Marine here, there are things they do better than any other service and should be commended on these, but I hope you can acknowledge the place political lobbies play within the arms procurement process. Virtually every 'system' has come in late and over budget because of people who will never use the object in question in the real world have to put in their two cents, often with a bias that has only little to do with its usefulness/practicality in the battle sphere.

Lets consider the SEAL Teams. Superb operators by any measure, yet kinda counter intuitive when you take time to consider it. Born from the WWII era Underwater Demolition Teams (UDT's) who scouted/cleared potential landing beaches and to carry out raids ashore. Nowadays they operate hundreds of miles offshore, in urban areas carrying out Ground Combat Operations. As I recall doesn't the Navy already have some form of ground pounders to do that sort of thing? Hell, doesn't the Army? Each service wants a piece of every budgetary dollar and will do backflips to get them.

I am not questioning if the Harrier, or a F-35B, is/could be useful, but rather if it is the best use of our limited budget. The Marines have shown a commendable adaptability in using what ever assets they are given to operate with, but the Army seems able to operate without any dedicated in house fixed wing aviation relying upon support from the Air Force or using their helo assets to do the job. Could not a more robust Helo contingent do most of the jobs a fixed wing VSTOL aircraft could at a fraction of the cost. Not air superiority of course, but then you thoughtfully offered the comment from General Hostage.

Might as well deal with that here. The F-35 A/B/C (please note the 'F' for fighter designation, not 'A' for attack) was intended (according to Wiki) to be a family of 'single-seat, single-engine, all-weather stealth multi role fighters' and were designed to 'preform ground attack and air defense missions'. I presume a Air Force General understands the meaning of a 'F' designation unless the curriculum at the Air Force Academy is sadly lacking these days. Or is the comment more to due with the justification of the F-22 Raptor program who, till the advent of the F-35, was the white elephant of American aviation. I understand the difference between a interceptor and a air defense mission but both at their heart is control of the air over a specific patch the ground/sea. If the F-35 C can not preform effectively in the 'air defense' role we might as well start scrapping our CVN's now. Without CVN's we may as well disband the Marine Corps also except for Embassy guards and brig attendants on board ships.

Considering the verbal dexterity employed by many uniformed service members to either praise or condemn various programs based on who they help or harm one would be forgiven in thinking that the various War Colleges offered graduate classes in bureaucratic double talk non fact factoids. Speaking of which.

Wiki offers the same comment, word for word, quoted from General Hostage. It also offers another comment that touches upon the USMC declaring the F-35B having 'met operational capability' on July 31, 2015 despite 'shortcomings in night operations, communications, software and weapons carriage capabilities'. What were they expected to do, ram their targets? J. Michel Gilmore from the Pentagon's Office of Operational Test and Evaluation declared the trials as not valid and further stated in a memo that " the exercise was so flawed that it was not a operational test in a formal or informal sense of the term" and that the test "did not- and could not demonstrate that the version of F-35 that was evaluated is ready for real world operational deployments, given the way the event was structured". So I guess if its aliens in CGI star fighters we have a even chance, right?

The Marines intend to buy 340 F-35B's and 80 F-35C's which is short only 60 units of the Navy buy of 480 F-35C's. The Marines plan to not only replace their Harriers, but also their F/A 18's as well with a stealth CAS aircraft. Do they really need a stealth VSTOL CAS aircrat in such great numbers when the Army doesn't? Lets be honest both the Army and Marines for the last 20 years (if not longer) are operating in the very same environments. When they have been forced to make opposed amphibious landings they have done so with either land based aviation or carrier based aviation available to them. Sure its nice to have VSTOL aircraft in certain situations, but then I could make the argument that having a Iowa, or a modern equivalent could be of great use. Wouldn't be practical or economical, but man those 16 inch guns would be awesome.

The defense of a downed F-15 pilot is mentioned, most commendable, but then again apparently since there was a downed land based aircraft, land based aircraft were deployed within range were they not? Could not more Helo aviation done essentially the same thing? Was not Operation Odyssey Dawn a mission of choice rather than a off the cuff deployment and was not a French CV deployed to the operation? Again not saying they are without value, just asking if the value is worth the cost?

Part of the buy is some 80 odd F-35C's to provide 5 ten plane Marine squadrons for use on CVN's. Is this necessity or merely tradition, a exercise of ego stroking? What exactly is the extra value of having Marine pilots flying the same missions and aircraft as Navy pilots? Do they fly faster? Bomb more accurately? Shoot down more enemy aircraft? Is there some shortage of naval aviator's that the Pentagon is trying to keep secret? One of the reasons our defense budgets are ballooning out of control is this wasteful duplication of effort between the services. The Navy send sailors to fight ground combat and the Marines send Devil Dogs to fly carrier missions. SEAL's of the Air anyone?

I'm not out to skewer the USMC over the F-35 nightmare, that dubious honor belongs to Congress who thought they could make one airframe do far too many things. The Marines are just trying to game the system the way all services do. We are at the point where the planes themselves have diverged so far and the cost ballooned so high, that it would have been cheaper and faster to allow each service to have created aircraft dedicated to their own needs.That doesn't detract however that without the powerful Marine lobby insisting upon a VSTOL version of the F-35 the overall cost of the program would be vastly less than it now is and all the developmental effort sunk into the project would have brought the A and C versions into service that much sooner, possibly even cheaper.

I have no doubt we can and will spend the money to make them do the things we want them to, but something somewhere will feel the pinch because of it and that too might just cost lives we otherwise might not lose. Have we not long past reached the point for a serious re-evaluation of both mission and equipment needs for all the services?

 

President-Elect Trump has weighed into the subject now as well. Wants it scrapped for cost over runs (as well as the Air Force One's replacement aircraft). Doubtful it will have much impact as we have spent too much money at this point to give up on them.

 

Trump has not said anything about the F-35 that has not been said many times before...The only difference is that he is the President Elect.

 

Heard Israel just received some...

 

Think it's good that Trump wants to discuss the cost of AF1. The price tag does seem a bit high. Same with the '35.
Wasn't the F111 delayed, then eventually turned into a silk purse?

 

I'll buy that when Trump makes a DC-3 the new Air Force One. Or when I see President Trump flying "coach" on a civilian 747.

Delayed? Try never happened...The F-111 never became a fighter like it was supposed to. However, after a few decades, it did become a decent bomber.

On the up side, it did lead to the Grumman F-14.

 

Yes, the 111 was never employed as a fighter. Rather, it blossomed into a sweet low level attack. The 11 did manage a silk purse out of a sows ear.