Monday, December 11, 2006

MOU for F-35 JSF

From Thornley Fallis, for Lockheed Martin:

Canada signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States government today to participate in the F-35 Lightning II fighter aircraft program’s next phase, known as Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development (PSFD).

Canada’s continued participation in the F-35 program, will enable the Canadian aerospace and defence industry to compete for up to CAD$8 billion in industrial participation opportunities over the next 20 years.

Already, Canada’s involvement in the first two phases of the program has resulted in 54 Canadian companies winning more than 150 contracts valued at approximately CAD$157 million.

“Canada’s highly skilled and globally competitive aerospace industry has been very much involved in the production of the F-35 Lightning II,” said Tom Burbage, Executive Vice President and General Manager of F-35 Lightning II Program Integration for Lockheed Martin [NYSE:LMT]. “We look forward to their continued 'best value' participation in the program throughout its life."

Canadian industry will have opportunities to compete in a variety of areas, including major structural assemblies, landing gear maintenance, advanced composites, high-speed machining, simulation and training, propulsion, and health and monitoring technologies. New opportunities will be identified as the program evolves.

The F-35 Lightning II program is a U.S.-led, multinational effort to build an affordable, multi-role, 5th generation, supersonic, stealth fighter. The F-35 is designed to replace a wide range of aircraft, including F-18s, F-16s, A-10s and Harriers.

In addition to the U.S., international participants include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey and the United Kingdom. There are defined needs for more than 3000 aircraft over the 40-year program with an estimated value of more than USD$276 billion.

Canada has been an active partner in the F-35 program since 1997, participating in both the Concept Demonstration Phase and the System Development and Demonstration Phase. The Government of Canada has contributed USD$160 million to these first two phases, which allowed the Department of National Defence and Canadian industry to be part of a cutting-edge, international military program.


I've been meaning to bone up on the F-35, since I know next to nothing about it beyond the fact that it's one of two 5th generation fighters in the world (the F-22 is the other), and that it's designed to do some pretty serious air-to-ground work, with STO/VL capability. That, and apparently Canada was the first nation other than the U.S. to sign on to the project. Time for me to end that sketchiness, if we're getting closer to buying this platform.

First impression: I'm always suspicious of fast-movers being touted as effective ground-support aircraft, but I've been wrong before. Can't remember when, mind you, but I'm sure it's happened...

Update: Mark pointed me to both the CF backgrounder on our participation in this program to date, and to another member of the Anglosphere about to sign on.

12 Comments:

Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

Hmmm... VSTOL would make it more adaptable to ground support no?

6:34 p.m., December 11, 2006  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

doesn't impact delivery of weapons in any way

I'm not sure I'd agree with that entirely. Being more manoeuvrable at slow speeds makes for a better ground support platform - hence the demand for helicopters and A-10's for CAS.

And this may be nitpicky, but the literature says "short take-off, vertical landing" - a combination I've never seen before, and one I'm anxious to learn more about.

8:55 p.m., December 11, 2006  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

Babbling: Essentially using full vertical take off capability reduces load-carrying excessively. Short take-off is like a Harrier off a jump-ski carrier, using the lift nozzles, I believe, at an angle to improve overall lift.

Vertical landing is necessary on carriers with no arrester hooks like UK and other ones and on USN amphibious ships.

The V/STOL capability (even short take-off) isn't much used on land, though can be useful. Marines are only US service that wants the V/STOL F-35B.

In service capability used is STOVL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSTOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOVL

Mark
Ottawa

10:29 p.m., December 11, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The LM F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a very complex aircraft for a very straightforward role. Our group of companies have been consultants in the international aerospace and technology sector for more then four decades and were part of the Northrop McDonnell Douglas Canadian Team on the New Fighter Aircraft Program (NFAP) focused on the Northrop F-18L "Cobra" and later the FA-18A "Hornet" the aircraft actually designed and built in the original concept was a Northrop Aircraft. It's strenghs statred with simplicity to opertae and maintain. We are very famil;ier with the "JSF"
which is exceedingly expensive, causing major problems for the United Kingdom MOD, and the statement that participation will generate billions in "offsets" (industrial regional benefits) is nonsense. We worked on the Maritime Helicoptrer Program and the "offsets" from the principal contractor and sub-contractors has been thus far a disaster for Canadian aerospace and technology industries. I could go into much more detail but the fact is "offsets" are condemmded by the US Departmnet of Commerce as bein contrary to NAFTA, which indeed they are. The replacement for the CF-188 (CF-18A) is a long way off, our opinion is despite some airframe problems the CF Fleet can fly for at least twenty more years. But the JSF is not the answer in our opinion.

8:09 a.m., December 12, 2006  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

Ok, so this thing does or doesn't work like the Harrier? IE can it VIF?

9:15 a.m., December 12, 2006  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

And to add a level of complication, nobody's yet talking about armed UAV's instead of fighters - which would be lower cost in both money and lives.

10:35 a.m., December 12, 2006  
Blogger Cameron Campbell said...

Can armed UAVs do ground support?

1:22 p.m., December 12, 2006  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Can armed UAVs do ground support?

Sure, why not? Conceptually, the only difference between a UAV and any other aircraft is that there are no souls physically on the aircraft. Other than that, the sky's the limit.

OK, that was cheesy of me, but I couldn't resist.

2:08 p.m., December 12, 2006  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

See following for armed Predator UAV:
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RQ-1_Predator

Mark
Ottawa

2:13 p.m., December 12, 2006  
Blogger WE Speak said...

We've been "squeezing" an extra 20 years out of everything for the last 30 years. Whether it's the Lightning or something else, replace it at the appropriate time for a change.

3:48 a.m., December 13, 2006  
Blogger WE Speak said...

Joint Strike Fighter website

3:58 a.m., December 13, 2006  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

"New US jump jet boosts capability - but lands Marines in hot water
The fighter plane, and a controversial jump-jet transport, would fulfill a 50-year-old goal for the corps.

By ordering a jump-jet variant, the Marines are fulfilling a 50-year-old goal of having an air fleet in no need of runways or big-deck aircraft carriers. But their version is boosting costs for the entire program and has caused the Navy, whose budget funds the Marines, to try to slow it down, defense analysts say..."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1213/p02s02-usmi.htm

Mark
Ottawa

9:45 a.m., December 13, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home