I always find the aerospace industry interesting, and military aerospace more so. By definition, everything related to the military is political and I am, very much, a political individual.
Therefore, I should like to comment on two ongoing global stories relating to fighter aircraft.
Firstly, the Lockheed Martin F-16 (Flying Falcon) fighter aircraft that is flown by pilots of 26 different countries and, although first flown in 1978, remains a formidable aircraft today ... albeit with some modifications.
One country that has enjoyed being equipped with this aircraft is Taiwan, assisted by the U.S. by virtue of the Taiwan Relations act. But the earlier purchase F-16 A/B aircraft are in urgent need of refurbishment or a new purchase upgrade to the latest F-16 C/D version. Of course, that appears to be a problem for the Obama administration who, it seems, do not wish to enrage the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing who will, again, display their sabre rattling posture. Nevertheless, the U.S. has, now, agreed to a refurbishment contract for the older aircraft, which is interesting because it seems that refurbishment will take longer to facilitate compared to buying the new F-16 C/D version. Perhaps, that is expected, but unlikely, to appease Beijing.
Thus, there we have it, politics. Although I am sure that the U.S. is also wary about espionage, considering the improving relationship between Taiwan and the mainland, and Russia's recent display of anger at China’s recent copying of Russian aircraft.
Personally, I would approve the immediate sale of the F-16 C/D to Taiwan (the order was placed 6 years ago) ... and let the arms of the CCP tire as they rattle their sabres.
Secondly, the Lockheed Martin F-35 (Lightning) stealth fighter is also coveted by Taiwan, but it seems an unlikely purchase at the present time. Personally, I would be happy if Canada transferred its order of F-35s to Taiwan ... and I do not mean to appear flippant.
The F-35 remains in an extraordinarily problematical pre-production/testing phase, even though some examples have been delivered to the USAF as training aircraft. The delivery dates to various countries have been extraordinarily delayed and costs have risen to a unit cost of $133 million.
Early models missed performance requirements because they weighed too much, and extensive redesign was required to reduce the weight; Recently, it was reported that only 50% of the aircraft’s software had been written and would take another six years and 110 additional software engineers to complete the software; There has been a long list of design failures; Many pilots have commented on the comparatively short range, and studies have shown that it could cost as much as 40% more to maintain than previous aircraft.
Australia has reduced some of its original options to purchase and, instead, has ordered the new Boeing F-18F (Super Hornet) aircraft to supplement its existing F-18A squadrons, and replace the GE F-111.
Canada, which is increasing its presence in the Arctic territories, continues to argue, unintelligently, that the single engine, shorter range, F-35 is the ideal aircraft to replace the twin engine CF-18 A/B, even though an engine failure over Arctic territories is not conducive to enthusiastic pilots.
Once again ... politics.
I have been deliberately brief with these comments (really) in the hope that it may encourage continuing participation in the discussion — F-16 C/Ds for Taiwan and a cancellation of F-35s for Canada.
Bernie
ReplyDeleteYour knowledge is quite extensive and exceeds mine so I cannot argue the merits of these aircraft.
I would suggest that they are a complete waste of time. What on earth is a supersonic invisible stealth fighter aircraft going to do in the foreseeable future. Anything that has actually been done by the current generation of F16's and F18's could equally have been done by WW 2 Mustangs and Mosquitoes albeit at a slower pace and cheaper.
Canada is buying F 35's only to kiss the asses of US officials and Pentagon brass. They are strictly make work projects for the Industrial Military complex of manufacturers and contractors.
We all should spend the money on infrastructure projects, health benefits, education and create good jobs.
Make love, not war.
Bernie, please tell me what use the F-35 aircraft will have is a world where wars are fought in secret by men without uniforms using stinger missiles and no rules.
ReplyDeleteIt occurs to me that this discussion could take two different directions; the merits of high technology military aircraft, and the Utopian view of peace and war. I shall introduce a Utopian discussion in the near future.
ReplyDeleteThe argument that F-16 and F-18 aircraft will be suitable to defend any nation well into the future (or until their airframes disintegrate) is well founded, as I do not believe the F-35 is superior as a fighter, its only advantage is its stealth characteristics and, personally, I do not believe that such characteristics provide the desired cloak of invisibility.
Thus, there is a lot of merit to the argument of make work projects.
Incidentally, the mention of the D.H. Mosquito of W.W.II fame is interesting as, being made of wood, it was virtually invisible to radar.
The increase of UAVs (also known as drones) as both reconnaissance and attack aircraft takes us into a future that may seem futuristic, but the Utopian dream would have a highly-developed aircraft that relies solely on the use of an advanced form of artificial intelligence. And we are a long way from that.
This may be 'news' to some people:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/23/canadas-first-f-35-jets-wont-have-ability-to-communicate-in-arctic_n_1027335.html
(Sorry, but unable to paste as a link)
More delicious fodder for the discussion:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-the-f-35-shapes-up-against-unmanned-drones/article1978831/?from=2211518
I have just received this letter from Ms. Nicole Turmel, M.P. Due to its length, I have deleted some paragraphs.
ReplyDelete----------------------------------
Dear Sir;
Thank you for your email regarding the Harper government's decision to move ahead with the untendered contract for F-35 fighter jets-costing billions of dollars, making it the largest military purchase in Canadian history.
New Democrats agree that this decision has raised concerns that can't be ignored. Canadians haven’t been told what the F-35 jets will cost or when they’ll be ready. Further, our Air Force is critical to Canada’s Arctic defence, but the Conservatives’ new jets won’t even work in the Arctic! Despite this, Stephen Harper is willing to sign a blank cheque to Lockheed Martin. Enough is enough.
(Delete)
Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page has voiced his real concerns too. He states that the untenured F-35 purchase will cost approximately $29 billion-almost double the estimate claimed by the Conservative government. While the Conservative government dismisses Mr. Page's numbers, they have, in fact, been peer reviewed for accuracy by Queen's University, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Mr. Page was forced to make this full independent assessment because the Harper government refused to provide him with their own figures regarding the jet purchase.
Winslow Wheeler, a defence spending watchdog with the Washington-based Centre for Defence Information, also examined the costing of the F-35s in the US. He said that even Mr. Page's numbers, while accurate, were not taking into account other important elements that will likely increase the cost, such as problems that will likely arise during the testing stage of development. He cites that the suggested per-plane cost of the program would be roughly $115 million. Winslow stated "to get to that number, they use several crude, disingenuous tricks. It's all hogwash.
"Ultimately, the cost of this airplane is going to be about $200-million per airplane."
Others agree. During the course of the Defence Committee's hearings on the purchase of the F-35s, it became obvious that there are other, cheaper options available.
For example, Alan Williams, former Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of National Defence (DND), in condemning the purchase said, "There is one other large downside risk to sole-sourcing, namely the increased potential for impropriety. The expenditure of public funds, especially when we're talking about billions of dollars, demands not only the highest degree of integrity, but also the appearance of the highest degree of integrity. An open, fair, and transparent process is critical."
Also troubling, there were other companies who were never consulted about potential contracts. Representatives from Boeing, makers of the F/A-18 "Super Hornet," state that they were never contacted about a potential military contract. Nor was the Sweden manufacturer, Saab, makers of the Gripen. Both companies state that these planes more than meet the capabilities required by the military.
(Delete)
Sincerely,
Nycole Turmel, M.P.
Interim Leader of the Official Opposition
New Democratic Party of Canada
-----------------------------------
In my opinion, this is not a matter of party politics, it is a matter of democracy.
Today, it is not surprising to read (AviationWeek) that the Pentagon is reducing the number of F-35 purchases from 35 to 30 in the next yearly contract to cover, it is said, cost overruns. At the same time it is stated that they (The Pentagon) is reiterating its enthusiasm for India to purchase the F-35 even though they (India) has already rejected all U.S. aircraft for its fighter competition. I wonder if it is relevant that Australia, an Asia/Pacific country, is also reviewing its F-35 purchase order.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, another statement (Postmedia News) says the the senior Pentagon official in charge of weapons testing, now, wants the test-flight programme delayed because of concerns over pilot safety ... a very peculiar statement it seems.
It is reassuring that Canada has not actually signed a purchase contract for this aircraft, and the government is only considering a purchase for political reasons.