But remember this is still frenzied leaking by the services to protect what turf they can:
…
Plans to order 138 new F35 Joint Strike Fighters are set to be cut to around 50, and the RAF’s entire fleet of Tornadoes faces the axe after next week’s review…
So there may well go some of the loot our aviation industry is expecting to get from international F-35 sales. Meanwhile two other international partners in the F-35 are not committing to serious actual contracts:
1) Norway:
Norway Delays JSF Purchase
2) Netherlands:
The Netherlands’ new coalition government is expected to maintain the nation’s commitment to the test phase of Lockheed Martin‘s F-35 programme, although a decision on whether the type will replace its Lockheed F-16s will not be made for several more years.
A conceptual agreement made by the right-wing VVD and PVV parties and the Christian Democrats to form a new cabinet includes plans to buy a second F-35 test aircraft in 2011 and to fully participate in the Joint Strike Fighter’s operational test and evaluation.
A ruling on further Dutch participation in the F-35 programme had been put on hold earlier this year, following the collapse of the nation’s last coalition cabinet.
An order for a first test aircraft was not cancelled, but a decision on acquiring the second was postponed until a new government was in place.
And note (same Telegraph story) that the RAF does not plan to use the F-35 for UK air defence–whereas defending Canada against Russian Bears is almost the only role the government mentions for our F-35s (from our Chief of the Air Staff: “He said the primary role of the new jet will be to control the country’s airspace.”):
In a strong defence of the RAF’s fleet of fast jets, his [Air Marshal Timo Anderson's] speech argued that the Quick Reaction Alert Force of Tornadoes and Typhoons [both non-stealthy aircraft] was vital to national security “despite what amateur theorists might assert from their armchairs”.
“Without such an air defence capability, the UK would not be able to guarantee security of its sovereign air space and we would be unable to respond effectively to a 9/11-style terrorist attack from the air.”..
One view on the F-35, and other JSF matters
Mark
Ottawa
[...] posted here: » UK F-35 Update: How, er, few? Unambiguously Ambidextrous likebot_bgcolor = ''; likebot_url = [...]
Which plane then?
A competition based on realistic military requirements agreed to by the government might help.
From earlier posts:
“…
It really should be a matter of what our government actually expects our new fighters to do, not potential bucks and jobs for Canadian industry (more here and here). And I still do not think initial attack against heavy and effective air defences–the primary purpose of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter–is a likely or necessary mission for the very small number of fighters that Canada could commit to any coalition operation overseas; we certainly are not going to act alone.”
http://unambig.com/the-us-marine-corps-the-f-35-and-the-super-hornet-4-5-for-canada/
“…
Ministers made no case as to why we need specifically “next generation” (“fifth generation”), i.e., stealth, fighters. The only military argument made for the new fighter was that it is necessary for airspace control/defence–for which stealth is not necessary. No mention was made by either the government or opposition that the F-35’s primary role is as a bomb truck. Otherwise almost all the the talk, from all parties, was about those industrial benefits.
What a pathetic Commons. The F-35 may be the right fighter for our Air Force. But the government cannot explain why convincingly in military terms, only in potential economic advantages. The ministers kept referring to a supposed “statement of requirements” developed by the Air Force. Yet those requirements seem to boil down solely to that stealth. Without, to repeat, any clear indication from the government of why stealth is in fact essential…”
http://unambig.com/f-35-video-of-govt-ministers-before-commons-national-defence-committee/
“Another thing the government isn’t mentioning is the primary role of the F-35 for the US. This is how the US Navy sees it (USAF is no different):
…the true introduction of a next-generation weapon system capable of providing joint, coalition striking power on Day One…
That’s why stealth is so important, to shield the aircraft in an initial attack against targets protected by a heavy and effective air defence system. How likely is it that Canada will ever participate in such an attack (think the start of the two wars with Iraq)?”
http://unambig.com/canadas-new-jet-fighter-the-f-35-what-the-govenment-isnt-saying/
Mark
Ottawa
Also relevant (I hope readers take the time actually to read rather than react reflexively):
“What the F-35 is mainly about
…
Upperdate thought: My main point is that for the mission the government, and the CAS, are touting stealth is no particular advantage. And that we are most unlikely to take part in any initial air strikes against a major enemy with a heavy and effective air defence. If our fighters ever operate abroad again it will be as a (very small) part of a coalition fighter force; I would think ours could take on tasks that do not require stealth in that situation.
The French and Germans are not acquiring stealth fighters; are we that much more likely to need the capability than they?. Without a real competition based on realistic mission requirements approved by the government, we will not know if the F-35 is in fact good value for the large amount of money…”
http://unambig.com/what-the-f-35-is-mainly-about/
Mark
Ottawa
[...] to this post, UK F-35 Update: How, er, [...]
[...] like they’re planning on 262 operational aircraft. In any event that pool of international JSF sales, from which our government hopes the Canadian aviation industry will make out like bandits, is [...]