Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canada F-35 Order Facing Scrutiny  
User currently offlineac788 From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 14117 times:

The Conservative government is taking fire from opposition parties following the release of a report issued by the Parliamentary Budget Office. The report indicates that the cost of the F-35 fleet will exceed the original estimated cost by "at least 66%".
Here is a link to the article on Flightglobal:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...cost-estimate-soars-66-report.html

151 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 14134 times:

Hey guess what the Air Force, you know the organization that will operate the F-35, doesn't want the Super Hornet the Eurofighter or the Saab. If we want to operate sub-standard equipment we'd just keep the current CF-18's for another 20 years.

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 14104 times:

Problems with the report:
1. A dollar to weight ratio for determining future costs? Are you kidding me?
2. A 30-year period? The government has only calculated for a 20 year period.
3. 2 mid-life upgrades? We only do one mid-life upgrade on our aircraft fleets.

Take out $4-5 billion for those two upgrades and the take 2/3 of the $24 billion remaining to make the 20-30 year differential go away and you have a PBO estimate of about $16 Billion. Wasn't that was the government's estimate?


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 14092 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 1):

Maybe it's time to reconsider. I agree that operating the F-18E/F or JAS 39 Gripen will be an open invitation for the Russians to laugh at us and do whatever the hell they want in the arctic, but so will a meager force of 60 F-35s. Meanwhile, we have an aging Navy that needs a total overall and new warships for all 3 fleets. At the very least, starting a bidding war won't hurt. It may even drive the prices down.

Think about it: if the F-35 and F-22 are too expensive for the richest superpower, then there's little chance that Russia can afford to produce, operate, and market any 5th generation fighter that will stand up against 4.5's like the Eurofighter and Rafale. Even if they do find the dough, they won't have enough money left over to train pilots to a caliber that even comes close to the proficiency of our pilots. It's highly doubtful China will get it right the first time either, and there's a reason why there's a flood of Asians attending Canadian flight schools instead of Chinese flight schools.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineac788 From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 14083 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 2):

The original government estimate was $17.3 billion. Can you explain these "2 mid-life upgrades" and the "dollar to weight ratio" you refer to?   
The Parliamentary Budjet Officer (PBO) provides an independent analysis of government finances so I'm going to assume their figures are credible.
If you want more details here is the pdf of the report:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/sites/pbo-dpb...ocuments/F-35_Cost_Estimate_EN.pdf


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 14059 times:

1. Dollar to weight ratio: page 8 of the report
2. 30 years vs 20 years: page 30. The PBO assumed 30 years, when the maintenance contract is for 20 years.
3. Assumptions with mid life upgrades: page 31. The PBO assumed there will be 2 mid-life upgrades. The CF has never done two mid-life upgrades on a single aircraft type. It's usually 1 after 15-20 years, and after another 15-20 years, the type is disposed of. See the CF-18 IMP, CP-140 AIMP, and C-130 avionics upgrade program.


User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14005 times:

How does the F-15SE stack up against the F-35 or the F-18E/F?

There have been no orders for it yet but it at least appears to have some potential to get much of what an F-35 can do at less cost, less time, and a known performer.

I can see Israel wanting a core of stealthy strike aircraft but who would Canada need to sneak up on and attack.

Would not the F-15SE provide as good or even superior long range air defense?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 13910 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 6):
I can see Israel wanting a core of stealthy strike aircraft but who would Canada need to sneak up on and attack.

Alaska, Iceland, Greenland, Bahamas... known extremist counties like these


User currently offlineac788 From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 13907 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):

Thanks for the references ThePointblank   

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 6):

As for the F-15SE, I believe it's faster and has a larger combat radius than the F-35. In addition it utilizes some stealth technology and has two powerplants vs. one in the F-35.

Maybe someone can provide further, more accurate information regarding possible alternatives to the F-35?


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13837 times:

Quoting ac788 (Reply 8):
Maybe someone can provide further, more accurate information regarding possible alternatives to the F-35?

There aren't any alternatives. Any else available is technologically outdated and purchasing it would be a waste of time.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 6):
I can see Israel wanting a core of stealthy strike aircraft but who would Canada need to sneak up on and attack.

Stealth is not only for offence. Who knows what conflict Canada will be in the next 5-10-20 years. Having the best equipment is essential - and the F-15SE or whatever else is not it.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 13694 times:

I will also note that using the PBO's budgetary formula's, the costs for F/A-18E/F increase to $145 million dollars or double its current fly away of $78 million.

In short, what we have going on is an apples to oranges comparison; the PBO is using a completely different set of assumptions than what the DND is using or has used, and that alone accounts for the discrepancy in costs. Most notably, the 30 years vs 20 years assumption is the biggest assumption that accounts for the majority of the cost difference. The headlines make it easy for a casual reader to conclude the government has low balled their number, and thus has mislead Canadians, when in fact the two estimates - when you turn PBO apples into government oranges, are essentially identical. When one does this, it distorts the public debate by creating false assumptions about the truth. It is poor reporting by the reporters and news pieces that have not fully read the report and just looked at the summary.

This is of course a problem with comparisons of variable timelines by accumulating costs. Longer timelines will always mean higher costs. You might as well say that operating a hospital or a school will cost you trillions of dollars because once erected they tend to stand for centuries.

The only fair method of evaluating in this situation is to annualize the costs, which is to say you take your timeline, whatever it is, and whatever platform, add up the costs and then divide them by the number of years to get the average annual cost of providing the service (e.g. it costs X millions of dollars per aircraft to operate this type). Only then you can do a straight comparison.


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 13501 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 7):
Quoting CMB56 (Reply 6):
I can see Israel wanting a core of stealthy strike aircraft but who would Canada need to sneak up on and attack.

Alaska, Iceland, Greenland, Bahamas... known extremist counties like these

No, much closer to home: St Pierre & Miquelon which be only 6 miles from Newfounfland. Dastardly, low-life Frenchies can launch devastating strike on Canadian mainland from there, aided by the 5th column in Québéc...

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 665 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 13364 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 9):

There aren't any alternatives. Any else available is technologically outdated and purchasing it would be a waste of time.

Stealth is not only for offence. Who knows what conflict Canada will be in the next 5-10-20 years. Having the best equipment is essential - and the F-15SE or whatever else is not it.

Do you work for Conservative party ?


User currently offlineac788 From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13339 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 12):
Do you work for Conservative party ?

  


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting faro (Reply 11):
No, much closer to home: St Pierre & Miquelon which be only 6 miles from Newfounfland. Dastardly, low-life Frenchies can launch devastating strike on Canadian mainland from there, aided by the 5th column in Québéc...

we forgot the Visconsin Scandahovians....


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 13322 times:

On another forum, someone posted a letter by Laurie Hawn, who is a MP and is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. He's an ex-fighter pilot who has many years of service flying everything from F-104's to the CF-18's. Important points have been bolded:

Quote:
There is a lot of misinformation out there about the F-35 program. This is going to be long, but it’s important that you have the whole story. This is the biggest military program in our history as was the NFA program back in its day. Some of the same type of people are saying some of the same things now that they were saying 30 years ago.

The concept of ops for the CF-18 was to operate the aircraft for phase-in plus 15 years, at which time we would be in the process of acquiring our next fighter. That would put that action at 2003. It made perfect sense for the Liberals to sign onto the JSF MOU in 1997 and to up the ante in 2001. We upped it again in 2006 and made the formal decision to acquire the F-35 under the MOU in July 2010. For the Liberals to say now that they had no intention of buying the aircraft is absolute nonsense. We are buying an aircraft to fly until at least 2050.

Let's take process first. We've had subject matter experts, military and civilian, studying the JSF programs and other options for years at a very highly classified level. We have highly experienced fighter pilots and engineerson the military side, many of whom I have known for decades. On the civilian side, we've got people like BGen (ret) Dan Ross, ADM (Mat) for the past five years and a guy who has helped reduce acquisition times from over 100 months to less than 50 months. We also have a guy named Mike Slack, who has been exclusively involved with JSF for close to ten years, and who knows the nonsense that former ADM (Mat) Alan Williams is spreading. We initially looked at F-22, F-35, F-18E/F, Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale. F-22 was eliminated right away, because it would not be for sale to anyone other than the U.S. After analysis, the Gripen and Rafale were eliminated as not having any performance advantage over our current CF-18. A more extensive evaluation of the F-35, F-18E/F and Typhoon was conducted. The conclusion was that the F-35 is the only aircraft that meets the mandatory high level capabilities and the more specific operational requirements, and at the best cost with the best industrial opportunities. The same process was followed in the U.S., U.K., Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Italy, and Turkey within the MOU. Israel is on board outside the MOU and Japan, South Korea and others are poised to follow suit. There is a definite trend here and maybe we should listen to our own subject matter experts and all these people from so many countries

Comparisons done by others, such as Wg Cdr Mills, RAAF, have one major flaw. They are based on 3rd or 4th generation fighter knowledge and very limited understanding of the real difference to 5th generation capability. There is a very limited number of people anywhere who are fully read-in to the classified details and capabilities of the F-35. I'm not one of them (and I guarantee Mills isn't either), but I know what I don't know. Also, my only agenda and that of the CF and other militaries is to get the best piece of kit for our folks. So, my question to Mills and others would be "How do you know?" and "What is your agenda?”. Despite their lack of truly current information, Mills and another guy named Peter Goon seem to have found a receptive audience in other parts of the world, whose agenda may also be different than ours.

The F-35 is not a turn-and-burn king (dog fighter) compared to pure air superiority fighters, like the F-22 and some of the new Russian aircraft. It is on par with the Hornet, but becomes clearly superior with 5th generation technology. That has proven out in various simulator exercises and we have had a number of current CF-18 pilots involved. The other basic question is, is it superior to available 4th generation fighters. To a remarkable degree the answer is yes. In basic areas of range, endurance, payload, turn, etc., the F-35 is at least equal to the other options. In other more high-tech areas related to 5th generation unique capabilities, there is no comparison. One of our handicaps is that we can’t explain all the reasons why, because of the very highly classified nature of some of the information. One of the bottom lines is that we don’t want an aircraft at the end of its development cycle and at the end of its production. We want one that is at the start of its development cycle and one that will be in production for at least the next 25 years.

Let’s talk about interoperability. We had problems in Kosovo because our Hornets lacked the communications necessary to be part of many packages. Our allies had to be dumbed down, so that we could play. It is more than radios and data-link, when we talk about interoperability between 4th and 5th generation aircraft. If you have a package of F-35s with a package of CF-18E/F tagging along, we would stick out to enemy defences like a sore thumb and endanger the whole package. We would be relegated to decoy status and soak up a lot of unfriendly stuff. Without going into exact numbers, an F-35 can kill a CF-18 at many times the range that the CF-18 will even see the F-35.

The Super Hornet production line closes in 2014 and the USN will retire the aircraft by 2025. We would be on our own after that and any software upgrades, system changes, R&D, test and evaluation, etc. would be on our hook for our fleet of 65 aircraft. That’s not very cost effective. The U.S. Government makes the decision on when to shut down the production line and a big chunk of the equipment is owned by them. The only way that the production could continue is with more off-shore sales. That doesn’t appear to be happening and we would still be orphaned after 2025. Boeing will cite the Aussies buying 24 Super Hornets (at a hefty price). The Aussies are very clear that those aircraft are a ten-year bridge from the F-111 to the F-35.

Many people express concern about the single-engine configuration, and I was one of those. When I took a closer look at current engine technology, I was satisfied that the risk is very well mitigated by new materials, blade and engine design, and the level of redundancy. You can throw a lot of stuff down the intake and it will be spit out by the very thick and tough blades and the high by-pass. We should also remember that trans-oceanic commercial flights were restricted to four-engine aircraft. Now two engines is the norm.

Let's look at cost. If we translate the $16,090,000 that we paid for each CF-18 in 1980 dollars to 2016, they would then cost $63 million. Our price for the F-35 will be between $70 - $75 million, for a quantum increase in capability. That's not bad. You hear a lot about cost escalation and there is truth to that, as there is for any leading edge technology program. The cost-per-jet numbers you're hearing are the progressive average cost of the early aircraft, the very first of which cost $249 million. We are buying our aircraft starting in 2015 / 2016 at the peak of production and lowest cost. You may have heard that Norway has delayed their acquisition. That was done to follow our example and get the aircraft at the cost sweet spot of the production cycle. Despite all their economic woes, the U.K. is continuing their program to acquire F-35s. The U.S. Government is underwriting any increase in R&D costs and the program is outperforming current cost curve projections. The Congressional oversight that is being exercised in the U.S. is good news for us and other members of the MOU. It’s about the reporting system in place at Lockheed Martin, not the aircraft itself. There is automatic triggering of Congressional measures at certain levels. That is based on forecast costs and does not take into account the very high costs of the early aircraft. Nevertheless, this process does put pressure on Lockheed Martin and that is good for all of us.

Let's look at the breakdown of the $16 billion you hear quoted. About $5.5 billion is for the aircraft. About $3.5 billion is for simulators, training, infrastructure, spares, etc., much of which will come to Canadian industry. The other $7 billion is a very educated estimate of what it will cost to support the aircraft for 20 years, the majority of which will come to Canadian industry. None of this is "borrowed"; it is all within the programmed funding envelope of the Canada First Defence Strategy.

You will hear Boeing say that they can beat the price of the F-35. The number they quote is in 2009 dollars and does not include such niceties as external fuel tanks, pylons, helmet-mounted sight system, targeting pod, missile launchers, radar warning receivers, self-protection jammers, active self-protection counter measures (chaff and flares) and the GUN! Great for cross-countries and airshows, but not much else. Add $8 - $9 mill per aircraft to do the job. When we do an apples-to-apples cost comparison between F-35, F-18E/F and Typhoon in production year dollars, the F-35 is by far the cheapest. I can’t give you the exact numbers, but they are contained in government-to-government documentation between PMA 265 and DND. There will be 560 Typhoons worldwide, 500 Super Hornets and 3000 – 5000 F-35s. The economies of scale not only for initial purchase under a multi-national MOU, but also for spares, are pretty obvious.

Let's look at the value of being part of the MOU. Every member of the MOU has one vote. Within the MOU we are exempt from Foreign Military Sales fees and that saves us about $850 million on the cost of the aircraft. For every FMS sale outside the MOU (e.g. Israel), we get a portion of the royalties. As part of the MOU, we also have the right to use all the classified intellectual property. We would lose that outside the MOU. As part of the MOU, we have guaranteed spots on the production line. This is critical to the timing of bringing the F-35 into service and phasing out the CF-18 before it dies a fatigue life death.

Let's talk about industrial opportunities as part of the MOU. As an aircraft acquirer within the MOU, our industry has favoured treatment for contracts for the global supply chain for between 3000 and 5000 aircraft. That global supply chain is being established as we speak, and that was one of the reasons for the decision in July. Although our companies could still technically participate under the MOU if we were still members but not acquiring aircraft, business realities would clearly say otherwise. For example, Pratt and Whitney makes engine components in Montreal and Turkey. If Turkey is acquiring aircraft under the MOU and Canada is not, guess where P&W will put the business. We have opportunities for at least $12 billion in business. If we are outside the MOU, we would lose that ground floor advantage for next generation technology and whatever comes after that. [Now that we have activated the procurement provisions of the MOU, the negotiated Industrial Participation Plans (IPP) kick in and it is under those that Canadian companies have signed hundreds of millions worth of contracts since July. If we withdraw from the MOU to conduct a competition, our participation in the IPPs ceases. Canadian industry knows that and they are putting a lot of pressure on the Liberals to do the right thing.

The Liberals have said that they would cancel the acquisition phase of the F-35 MOU that we have entered into and hold a competition and they say that there would be no consequences of doing that. What nonsense! We would have to negotiate our way out of the MOU at a potential cost of up to $551 million. We cannot compete the MOU deal for the F-35 against an FMS deal for a Super Hornet. We would be buying the F-35 directly from the U.S. Government on an FMS case with a take-it-or-leave-it price. We would lose our spots on the production line and we would be running a serious risk of a capability gap if we have to retire the CF-18 before the new aircraft is on the line. With all the information that we have on cost, capability, industrial opportunities, etc., the answer would still be F-35 and we would have lost time, money, jobs and international respect.

In no other MOU partner is the political opposition taking such a position and it is having an impact on the credibility and confidence that our allies have in Canada. It absolutely will cost jobs if they don’t stop very soon. We have seen this partisan political movie before in 1993. Seventeen years and close to a billion dollars later, we're still waiting for the first Sea King replacement. The implications of this one are infinitely greater.

When this all started, I was a Super Hornet fan. Everything that I have seen, read and heard since has convinced me that the F-35 is the answer. No one who has studied the options with adequate information in at least ten countries has reached any different conclusion. It is not risk free; no new program is. There are echoes of the New Fighter Aircraft Program here, and that program turned out just fine. We need to get on with it.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13307 times:

This was not a surprise, especially from the Liberals. Remember how they gutted our military capacity in the 90s, they are not a fan of the CAF. Look how long it took to get the CH-147s, and the CH-124s are still in full service. Say what you will about the Conservatives, they have really reinvigorated our military.

I really worry about these shenanigans by the Liberals, looking for anything they can run with to manipulate the Conservatives. They could delay this purchase by years if they successfully push the Conservatives out of power.


User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 665 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13297 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
Say what you will about the Conservatives, they have really reinvigorated our military.

I'm not against buying new jets, but we could have 2-3 times more Super Hornets for the same price and we have the expertise to perform maintenance. Canada does not need a single-engine stealth fighter, the Super Hornet is more than adequate for our needs.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13271 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 17):
I'm not against buying new jets, but we could have 2-3 times more Super Hornets for the same price and we have the expertise to perform maintenance. Canada does not need a single-engine stealth fighter, the Super Hornet is more than adequate for our needs.

Do you work for the Liberal Party, because clearly you don't have a clue in this matter. Everything you just said there is pure fluff that comes without facts or sources. Just what we need, more arm-chair internet generals that don't have a clue.

[Edited 2011-03-13 12:20:03]

User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 13243 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 17):
Quoting Oroka (Reply 16):
Say what you will about the Conservatives, they have really reinvigorated our military.

I'm not against buying new jets, but we could have 2-3 times more Super Hornets for the same price and we have the expertise to perform maintenance. Canada does not need a single-engine stealth fighter, the Super Hornet is more than adequate for our needs.

Canada per se doesn't need much of an air force at all unless Russia reverts to 'evil' mode (probability remote) or China starts harboring aspirations of global military dominance (not so remote in probability, but much more so in time). I would think that today, Canada's air power requirements are mostly to fulfill present and future NATO commitments abroad.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineac788 From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13238 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):

Definitely a very eye opening and informative letter from Laurie Hawn, ThePointblank. Thanks very much for posting it.   

Thought this was interesting:
"Many people express concern about the single-engine configuration, and I was one of those. When I took a closer look at current engine technology, I was satisfied that the risk is very well mitigated by new materials, blade and engine design, and the level of redundancy."


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 13222 times:

Quoting ac788 (Reply 20):
Thought this was interesting:
"Many people express concern about the single-engine configuration, and I was one of those. When I took a closer look at current engine technology, I was satisfied that the risk is very well mitigated by new materials, blade and engine design, and the level of redundancy."

Just to add to that, even with our current twin F404 it is very rare to see a complete engine failure. I've seen aircraft deemed "great jet" by the pilot only to see bent fan blades on the intake crawl. Recently we had a pelican ingestion and even though the pilot had to cancel his mission, the engine still had thrust. http://tinyurl.com/5rr2qrq Unlike queb, I have first-hand experience.  


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13201 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 21):
Recently we had a pelican ingestion


Really... A pelican? Where did this occur?

Edit...

had a posting problem..

Was this a counter attack for those Canadian geese bringing down Sully's A320 US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson?  duck 

[Edited 2011-03-13 15:15:58]


harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 13060 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 17):
I'm not against buying new jets, but we could have 2-3 times more Super Hornets for the same price and we have the expertise to perform maintenance. Canada does not need a single-engine stealth fighter, the Super Hornet is more than adequate for our needs.

The Super Hornet is being retired the the majority of its owners in 10 years! That will leave Canada as one of the few operators of a out of production jet, it will be like Australia and the F-111, having to raid the bone yard for parts.

Our air force is going to be flying these jets for the next 30 years. 10 years from now, it is going to be rubbing shoulders with the likes of the TU-50 and the J-20. In a conflict with someone with one of these 5th gen jets, a Super Hornet equipped CAF will have to stay behind while our allies fight because our 'new' jets are insufficient for the 21st century air war. While the Super Hornet is somewhat modern, it is still a 35 year old jet, arguably 40+ if you consider the YF-17. By the time the CAF would be done with the F/A-18E, the design would be 60-70 years old!


There are things you can be frugal with, fighter jets is simply not one of them. Canada is getting 65 F-35s to replace 78 CF-18s(I think the fleet is 72 now), we had 138. That is quite a decrease in capability.


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 12497 times:

And now the F-35 -amongst other things- has brought down the Harper government:

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/...ence-Vote-on-Harper-118682794.html

The Liberals and others allege non-disclosure of F-35 financial details and are trying to hold the Conservative in contempt of parliament. No wonder when estimates in another a.net thread put unit purchase cost at USD 150 million and overall program life cost at USD 450 million per aircraft...just totally out of control...

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 12598 times:

Yeah, sadly it was somewhat predictible. The Liberals will make sure the CAF gets inferior hardware. Sell the new batch of Chinooks to the Dutch, and I heard the RAAF is looking for some more C-17s, we have 4 soon to be out of a job air frames.

This will delay the CF-18 replacement by years.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 12547 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 25):
This will delay the CF-18 replacement by years.

The CF-18's are grounded past 2017-18, so what will happen to our NORAD commitments without fighters?


User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 665 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12709 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 25):
This will delay the CF-18 replacement by years.

Even if the Conservatives are reelected, the F-35 will be delayed 3-4 years minimum.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 12654 times:

Hmmm, i smell a canadian Super Hornet order...

Maybe the new version which was offered to india!


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 12626 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 27):
Even if the Conservatives are reelected, the F-35 will be delayed 3-4 years minimum.

Nice to see the arm-chair general back discussing something he has no clue about.  
Quoting 328JET (Reply 28):

Hmmm, i smell a canadian Super Hornet order...

Maybe the new version which was offered to india!

If Canada needed the upgraded tin cans they would've already bought them. We need something that will last into 2050, and the outdated SH is not it. The military says they NEED the F35, which is more important than what the clueless public and opposition politicians WANT.


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12536 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 29):
The military says they NEED the F35, which is more important than what the clueless public and opposition politicians WANT.

Of course they need it. Now let's talk price:

- est. USD 150 million per copy for Canada 65 aircraft purchase (roughly the cost of a 763ER);
- est. USD +29 billion total life cycle costs for Canada (approx. 2% of est 2010 GDP);
- + cost of 4-year software delay: F-35 Software To Be At Least 4 Years Late (by kanban Mar 15 2011 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
- + cost of fixing recently disclosed flaws (albeit mostly on the F-35B): More F-35 Problems (by kanban Mar 25 2011 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)

And then of course you have the as-yet unknown fixes/costs to deal with; given the complexity of the aircraft, IMHO there is a fair chance of more non-negligible problems cropping up.

Regardless of the F-35's pros and cons, it is not everyday that a military program contributes to the fall of a sovereign government. Perhaps the F-35 is worth all that money, I admit. But there is a pervasive public perception that it is not and that perception has helped bring down an entire government, which is a *mighty* serious consideration. Things like that should *never* happen.

If the F-35 is worth the money and the Canadian people are fully appraised of cost estimates to their smug satisfaction, so be it. It's their money to spend as they deem necessary. If not, the military can need it as hard as they can; they simply won't get it.

Faro

[Edited 2011-03-27 02:49:33]


The chalice not my son
User currently offlineAC788 From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12466 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 30):

faro, read Reply 15 which addresses the PBO's findings.
Also, I'm not sure how much the F-35 program really contributed to bringing down the gov't. IMHO, the opposition parties just like to throw around big numbers associated with the program to scare the general public. Having said that, even if another party is voted in (current polling estimates put the Conservative party ahead, possibly even on the verge of a majority gov't), replacing the F-18s is inevitable. One party or another will have to suck it up and foot the bill of a replacement fleet of fighter aircraft.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12446 times:

Quoting AC788 (Reply 31):
Also, I'm not sure how much the F-35 program really contributed to bringing down the gov't. IMHO, the opposition parties just like to throw around big numbers associated with the program to scare the general public.

It really wasn't the F-35 that is potentially bringing down the government (they are still in power), it is just the latest topic the Liberals and NDP have used to threaten the Conservatives with, it happens pretty much once every year, this time they didn't get what they wanted and are going through with their threats.


The CAF can need the F-35 all they want, they are likely to get used Super Hornets if the Conservatives fall out of power. You can count on Boeing jumping the guts out of this chance to sell some fighter jets to any country.


IIRC, if you factor in lifetime costs, the SH is not much cheaper than the F-35.

[Edited 2011-03-27 07:05:43]

User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12451 times:

Can i just say that there is no point that this lawrie hawn chap makes that i'm disagreeing with - but his arguments are incomplete - when you complete the picture - the results are very different. His reply is typically bureaucratic verbal acrobatery.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
The F-35 is not a turn-and-burn king (dog fighter) compared to pure air superiority fighters, like the F-22 and some of the new Russian aircraft. It is on par with the Hornet, but becomes clearly superior with 5th generation technology.

the problem here is that a Super-manoeuvring fighter at mach .9 can out-turn a missile fying at mach 4. When you bring the mach 7 and mach 9 missiles like the S-300 and mach 15 missiles like the S-500 that ratio goes up significantly

Yes the dogfight era is over - but - Hawn therefore very cleverly avoids the question of manoeuvring in self defence

And then the F-35 is graded as LO not VLO which means it need quite a bit more of the manoeuvrability than it has.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
In basic areas of range, endurance, payload, turn, etc., the F-35 is at least equal to the other options.

yes - except payload - the payload equality comes only in external - non stealthy carriage - with all the accompanying drag and therefore range endurance and associated turn limitations.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
In other more high-tech areas related to 5th generation unique capabilities, there is no comparison.
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
One of our handicaps is that we can’t explain all the reasons why, because of the very highly classified nature of some of the information.

Yes the old trust me line - I'm sorry but this is not how you win an argument in a democracy.... a democracy's founding principle is to trust NO ONE........ "trust me" is how Napoleon overturned the revolution, and Hitler overturned the Weimar republic. In the USSR yes - of course comrade stalin knows best ..............or else you'll go to a gulag......... but in a democracy that such a ludicrous argument can be used smacks of using the official secrets act to cover bureaucratic bungling. In fact that's the only real reason the OSA exists.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
an F-35 can kill a CF-18 at many times the range that the CF-18 will even see the F-35.

"BY THE CF-18" being the operative and deceptive part of that sentence. true - but half true. Yes it will against the CF-18 but not against other IRST equipped fighters like the rafale,EF, especially given its very large exhaust signature - given its huge thrust.

and also it will be seen by a whole new generation of ground based radars operating in the L and S bands. ... but yes true it cant be seen by the CF-18 radar operating in the X band where the F-35's stealth is maximised

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
You can throw a lot of stuff down the intake and it will be spit out by the very thick and tough blades and the high by-pass.

This was NEVER EVER the problem with the F-35 engines.... it was always the over the top dry thrust and the exhaust signature and the lack of exhaust signature management or exhaust shaping. Very convenient - manufacture a problem that was never the main attacking point of its opponents and then claim this was the MAJOR sore point of the detractors.

The only place this was a consideration was Oz because these are mostly required to operate over water... and even there the main criticism was the exhaust signature - not the single engine. Only agendad knee jerk F-35 opponents like carlo kopp persist with the single engine not safe BS.

Everybody in the aircarft industry civil or military agrees that single engine fighters have become pretty damn safe.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
Our price for the F-35 will be between $70 - $75 million, for a quantum increase in capability. That's not bad.

really????? lets see how much did the Israeli contract come up to?? 96 million a plane WITHOUT all additional equipment which added up comes to 150 million a pop.

The latest congressional testimony says 126 million a pop (vice admiral venlet in march 2011) - that's still a 71% increase over the Hawn chaps "estimate" and presumably the programme manager testifying to congress should know better than a Canadian bureaucrat yes?


the 75 million quoted is a wildly optimistic unit flyaway cost..

and that is using the march 2010 lockheed figures - after which in august it was revealed that maintenance will be 50% more expensive per plane than initially thought.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
You will hear Boeing say that they can beat the price of the F-35. The number they quote is in 2009 dollars and does not include such niceties as external fuel tanks, pylons, helmet-mounted sight system, targeting pod, missile launchers, radar warning receivers, self-protection jammers, active self-protection counter measures (chaff and flares) and the GUN! Great for cross-countries and airshows, but not much else. Add $8 - $9 mill per aircraft to do the job.

So how come for what is advertised as an "ALL INCLUSIVE" platform the Israelis were asked to cough up 54 million (IE 56% of platform cost) for optional extras ????

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
3000 – 5000 F-35s.

eh???? total production is now set at 3100 .... and at 126 million a pop no one except western Europe and Japan can afford to buy these planes. When it was meant to be "cheap" at 45 million - yes a lot of third world counties too could have bought this. The problem is that its capabilities will remain what was promised for at 45 million but the cost has now nearly trebled.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
If Turkey is acquiring aircraft under the MOU and Canada is not, guess where P&W will put the business. We have opportunities for at least $12 billion in business.

So spend 17 billion to get 12 billion worth of business.????? How about spending 12 billion directly into Canadian r&D and Canadian industry??? and you'll have 5 billion spare change to spend on health care, education and such ? that's an even better solution yes?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 15):
I'm not one of them (and I guarantee Mills isn't either), but I know what I don't know.

for someone who admits that even he doesn't know - he sure as hell put out a lot of determinist positions doesn't he. Essentially therefore if mills is talking crap so is hawn.

Quoting faro (Reply 24):
The Liberals and others allege non-disclosure of F-35 financial details and are trying to hold the Conservative in contempt of parliament.

dont worry - its all dama for votes - just like the labour party and kruddy did in Oz - once they come to power - they'll order "a high level enquiry" to "re-assess the F-35s suitability" and give it a resounding thumbs up.



Vi veri universum vivus vici
User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 665 posts, RR: 3
Reply 34, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 12386 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 29):
Nice to see the arm-chair general back discussing something he has no clue about.

We are not working for the Conservative Party, enlighten us about your great knowledge, you seem to know so much.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12364 times:

I can't wait for the Conservatives to get a majority, purchase the aircraft we need and shut up all the whiny, useless left minority.

User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 665 posts, RR: 3
Reply 36, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 12274 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 35):
I can't wait for the Conservatives to get a majority, purchase the aircraft we need and shut up all the whiny, useless left minority.

The F-35 will still be delivered late while there are other fighters "combat ready" (Super Hornet, Rafale, etc) available to [sarcastic mode ON] "protect us against the communists"    [sarcastic mode OFF] (say it with a russian or chinese accent, it's more scary   )


User currently onlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7269 posts, RR: 5
Reply 37, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12211 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 32):
IIRC, if you factor in lifetime costs, the SH is not much cheaper than the F-35.

Well we don't know how much the lifetime costs of F-35 are, although they appear to be increasing all the time, it really does appear to be turning into a fiasco well above previous US fiascos, Commanche and Marine One, look like minor costs blowouts compared to this turkey.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12216 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 37):

Well we don't know how much the lifetime costs of F-35 are, although they appear to be increasing all the time, it really does appear to be turning into a fiasco well above previous US fiascos, Commanche and Marine One, look like minor costs blowouts compared to this turkey.

However, once Super Hornet becomes retired by the USN, lifetime costs skyrocket as we would be left holding the bag for maintenance and upgrades. Rafale is a no-go because a Canadian order would constitute 1/4 of all Rafale's ordered right now (meaning we foot a large portion of any upgrade costs), and we would have to dispose of current weapon stocks with their French equivalents. Eurofighter costs as least as much as F-35 without some of F-35's stealth characteristics. And Gripen NG is also not acceptable because it offers nothing new compared to the current CF-18's.


User currently onlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7269 posts, RR: 5
Reply 39, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 12154 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 38):
Eurofighter costs as least as much as F-35

I'd like to see you prove this, we know what the flyaway the operational costs of Typhoon are, nobody knows what an F-35 will cost, all we know is it's going to be very very expensive and getting more so time goes by.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (3 years 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 12010 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 39):
I'd like to see you prove this, we know what the flyaway the operational costs of Typhoon are, nobody knows what an F-35 will cost, all we know is it's going to be very very expensive and getting more so time goes by.


Even if the F-35 will cost as much as the EF, the JSF is still a much, much better choice for Canada. It only makes sense for Canada to buy American not only politically but also geographically. I would hate waiting weeks for parts for a Typhoon that apparently is a maintenance nightmare.


User currently onlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7269 posts, RR: 5
Reply 41, posted (3 years 5 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 11986 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 40):
the JSF is still a much, much better choice for Canada.

Why?

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 40):
I would hate waiting weeks for parts for a Typhoon that apparently is a maintenance nightmare.

Yup it's going to take weeks to pop the parts in a transport and fly them across the atlantic, I bet fedex or DHL could next day deliver most parts. I can get a 250kg 3000W Xenon searchlight from Norway to Vancouver in 2 days.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (3 years 5 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 11964 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 41):
Why?

Not going to explain why. Again. It's been covered to death. The Air Force studied it for a decade and knows more as to WHY. I don't have to convince you.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 41):
Yup it's going to take weeks to pop the parts in a transport and fly them across the atlantic, I bet fedex or DHL could next day deliver most parts. I can get a 250kg 3000W Xenon searchlight from Norway to Vancouver in 2 days.

You can yes, but the Military supply chain takes a lot longer. It takes a week to get a small sensor from a warehouse in Montreal to the flight line in Cold Lake. Why, I don't know. I don't want to even think about how long a part will take crossing the Atlantic.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (3 years 5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 11894 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 41):
Why?

1. It has stealth characteristics that make it more difficult to detect.
2. Avionics package is considerably superior in user interface and capabilities to any fighter in existence, F-22 included.
3. Better sensor package compared to any fighter in existence.
4. Existing industrial involvement makes it easier to find Industrial Regional Benefits that are of substantive value.
5. Better interoperability with key allies.
6. etc, etc, etc.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 41):

Yup it's going to take weeks to pop the parts in a transport and fly them across the atlantic, I bet fedex or DHL could next day deliver most parts. I can get a 250kg 3000W Xenon searchlight from Norway to Vancouver in 2 days.

You tell that to the guys trying to service the CH-149 Cormorants... they are often waiting months for key parts to come from the factory, leaving birds grounded. And that is with a third party contractor that's responsible for maintenance of the birds.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4804 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 11714 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 3):
but so will a meager force of 60 F-35s.

Sixty of the latest, most advanced fighters now flying somehow don't seem to fit the "meager force" description.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 6):
Would not the F-15SE provide as good or even superior long range air defense?

If the USAF would acquire a significant number for its own, the Silent Eagle could very well be a good alternative. Without that, F-15SEs for other air forces may not be a viable proposition.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 33):
So spend 17 billion to get 12 billion worth of business.????? How about spending 12 billion directly into Canadian r&D and Canadian industry??? and you'll have 5 billion spare change to spend on health care, education and such ? that's an even better solution yes?

You would still get a new, stealthy fighter fleet. Agree that spending the same amount locally could do wonders for Canadian industry, but does that ensure that the CF would have a cutting edge replacement fighter fleet in the end.....and how long would it take?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11713 times:

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 44):

You would still get a new, stealthy fighter fleet. Agree that spending the same amount locally could do wonders for Canadian industry, but does that ensure that the CF would have a cutting edge replacement fighter fleet in the end.....and how long would it take?

Yes, the CF-18's won't be able to fly for that much longer; remember, the estimated service life of the F/A-18 Hornet is around 8,000 hours. We are already coming close to 7,000+ hours on a number of birds already. A number of CF-18's are going through the expensive centre barrel replacement program, and many of the already grounded ones are experiencing delamination of the centre barrel section.


User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 665 posts, RR: 3
Reply 46, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 11298 times:

Everybody (except Powerslide) knows that the F-35 will be delayed :

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...ralia-boeing-idUSTRE73A00220110411


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 47, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 11259 times:

I've been on medical leave for quite a while, just catching up:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 29):
If Canada needed the upgraded tin cans they would've already bought them. We need something that will last into 2050, and the outdated SH is not it. The military says they NEED the F35, which is more important than what the clueless public and opposition politicians WANT.

Sure. The military told us they NEEDED the Upholder-class subs so we could "stay in the game" and we all now see what a huge success that has been. years behind schedule, way,, way over budget, still not operational, unable to fire current stock of weapons.... Say....sounds like similar problems to the F-35.

The military can tell us what they WANT/NEED all they like. What they have to understand is that it is the civilians who actually PAY for everything, and with competing demands for money, there are only so many things that can be afforded (this was a principal reason why the Arrow was killed, b.t.w. - and killed at the behest of the military chiefs themselves). Many people on the paying side of the equation believe that the F-35 is simply unaffordable.

And, from Queb's post 46, and other available info, other nations are waking up to this as well. In fact, the USMC has reduced its' F-35B purchase by 60 already, and switched to the straight carrier F-35C variant as a 'cost-saving' measure. I believe tis is actually the start of driving a stake through the heart of VSTOL abortion.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 35):
I can't wait for the Conservatives to get a majority, purchase the aircraft we need and shut up all the whiny, useless left minority.

Don't hold your breath. Those whiny lefties...  
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 43):
1. It has stealth characteristics that make it more difficult to detect.
2. Avionics package is considerably superior in user interface and capabilities to any fighter in existence, F-22 included.
3. Better sensor package compared to any fighter in existence.
4. Existing industrial involvement makes it easier to find Industrial Regional Benefits that are of substantive value.
5. Better interoperability with key allies.
6. etc, etc, etc.

Re point 5 - only better interoperability if the 'other allies' are actually using the F-35. Looks like Oz might be getting cold feet, Denmark and Netherlands already have them and are re-evaluating Gripen NG against needs.

Shmertspionem - your Post 33 is excellent ! Thanks,



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 11176 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 47):
Many people on the paying side of the equation believe that the F-35 is simply unaffordable.

If we chose the F-15SEC as a replacement, which I think would fit our current missions perfectly, the public would support it, even though it costs a lot more per a/c. For whatever reason, your average Canadian is convinced that the JSF is more or less a POS, they believe every lefty CBC article that sources a moron in Washington with an agenda. If the F-15 was chosen at a price of $30B+ for 100 units, the public would probably support it, why - because it has two engines and isn't getting any negative press.

Getting back to earth, we are already making plans on the technical side for the arrival of the JSF. I can't wait to see it land in Cold Lake or Bagotville and in Canadian colors. 


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 49, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 11136 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 48):
For whatever reason, your average Canadian is convinced that the JSF is more or less a POS, they believe every lefty CBC article that sources a moron in Washington with an agenda.

Not necessarily a POS, but lots of evidence mounting that it is an underperforming, overpriced, gold-plated profit machine for LockMart. And a way to keep 'our boys (and girls)' as part of the most expensive flying club in the world. And I say that as one from a family were everyone except me was in the Air Force. What we need is a cost effective tool to enforce sovereignty and administer our foreign policy when and where we have to. And probably more than 65 of them.

These people aren't CBC 'lefties' (whatever that actually means):

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141908

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5484169

http://defensetech.org/2011/03/16/de...ave-caused-f-35-generator-failure/

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/20101203.aspx

http://wethearmed.com/index.php?topic=13198.0

The 'one-size-fits-all' solution does not work. See TFX aka F-111. Could do a job, but not all.
So what do we really need in Canada ? Something with a decent intercept capability, reasonable range,
and decent at being a bomb truck.

FromWikipedia, both the F-35 anf F-18E/F have roughly comparable performance specs (speed, altitude, range) although the F-35 has a larger CR, although how this is known at this point is perhaps a mystery. Both can carry on the order of 18,000 lbs of ordnance, although the F-35 can only do this with external stores, negating its' alleged stealth 'advantage'. If you want a stealthy F-35, the 18,000 bomb truck becomes a 6,000 bomb Vespa.

Considering the range of hard targets we are likely to be engaged with over the next while (like Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Darfur, Ivory Coast, and so on) is stealth really necessary ? For any intercept missions, stealth shouldn't be an issue with an AESA (available for both) and sufficiently lengthy BVR missiles.

So why spend double the money ($122M vs $55M according to Wikipedia, admittedly not perhaps the absolute last word on weapon system pricing, but still, that's a big discrepancy) on a stealth aspect that really may not be necessary ? b.t.w. the Super Bug does already have some LO aspects built in.

With the F-18E/F many could be pre-wired for EA-18G capability, as the Aussies are doing, if there is a reasonably need for electronic warfare missions.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11114 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 49):
FromWikipedia, both the F-35 anf F-18E/F have roughly comparable performance specs (speed, altitude, range) although the F-35 has a larger CR, although how this is known at this point is perhaps a mystery. Both can carry on the order of 18,000 lbs of ordnance, although the F-35 can only do this with external stores, negating its' alleged stealth 'advantage'. If you want a stealthy F-35, the 18,000 bomb truck becomes a 6,000 bomb Vespa.

Wrong. F/A-18E/F's max range is shorter loaded with weapons compared to a F-35 loaded with weapons. The max range for the F/A-18E/F is stated in a clean configuration with no weapons and 5 drop tanks. F-35's stated range is based upon internal fuel only, with room for 8000kg of ordinance on top of a full fuel tank. Both will carry the same load, but on an apples to apples comparison (say, 2 AIM-120, 2 2000lb JDAM's, and a pair of Sidewinders), F-35 will carry that load further.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 49):
So why spend double the money ($122M vs $55M according to Wikipedia, admittedly not perhaps the absolute last word on weapon system pricing, but still, that's a big discrepancy) on a stealth aspect that really may not be necessary ? b.t.w. the Super Bug does already have some LO aspects built in.

The $122m for F-35 is for a LRIP model, while for the Super Hornet, it is the price for for a gutted aircraft with no systems installed, while the price for the F-35 is for a fully kitted combat ready aircraft at LRIP. US fly away costs that are frequently bandied about is usually for the bare bones aircraft with no government furnished equipment (such as the all important radar, avionics, electronic warfare systems, etc) Once you purchase all the extras you need, then integrate them, the Super Hornet comes out to much more per aircraft that the F-35 (in fact, the actual unit acquisition cost for F/A-18E/F is 106.1 million dollars per aircraft according to the GAO), for an older, less capable platform. Furthermore, once you get away from LRIP model F-35's into full rate production aircraft, costs come down significantly.

On the second point, Super Hornet does have SOME LO aspects; however, if one looks at it with a radar, it's still a easily detectable aircraft that will always look like a fighter jet on radar. F-35's radar signature is stated to be around the size of a golf ball in comparison.

What F-35 does better than every other fighter in existence right now (even F-22 in this matter), is the level of sensor integration on the aircraft. It's not only about "not being seen", but in seeing better than anyone else in a package that has all of the sensors working as one. In short, the sensors, the avionics, the electronic warfare system, communication / datalinks and weapons all work together as one on F-35. While previous aircraft designs have some elements of integration between various systems, it was very limited if at all possible in capabilities and performance as it required the pilot to be the final integrator of all the information from the various systems.

What F-35 does is that it makes all of the various systems work together as one in a very effective manner, while providing usable information to the pilot that can immediately be acted upon. Older aircraft do not have this level of integration, nor the ability to present information to the pilot in a usable manner, requiring the pilot to interpret and integrate the information being presented to create a picture of what's going on around him. As such, the pilot is focused more on trying to figure out what's going on around him rather than making snap decisions on how he will best employ his fighter.

This level of systems integration provides a major edge in close quarters combat; through the various systems (EW, EOTS, DAS, radar, data-links), a pilot in F-35 will know exactly who someone is, and where they are in relation to him as F-35 will automatically keep track of everyone around the fighter and who they are. In a swirling dogfight, it is very easy for a pilot to loose sight of his wingmen and where the enemy is and if two aircraft look very similar (say F-15 vs a MiG-29 or Su-27), the chances of fratricide is very high. Datalinks and IFF systems are utterly useless in such situations because they don't have the update speed necessary to keep track of everyone around them. F-35's system integration allows the pilot to figure out who's who in an instant, where they are and then shoot in confidence knowing that what they shot at is definitely enemy, not his wingman. Furthermore, no one will be able to sneak up on a F-35 pilot and shoot at him without the pilot being aware of him well beforehand because of the various systems that keeps track of everything going on around the pilot. As such, F-35 represents an incredible advancement in capability and technology that is overlooked by many people who are only focused on the stealth aspect.


User currently offlineBaldy71 From Canada, joined Apr 2011, 1 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 11115 times:

In reference to the CF101B (Voodoo) as used in the RCAF, the aircraft came to the RCAF in 1962 and I believe we received 60 aircraft including at least 3 duals. They were based in Bagotville, Chatham and Comox and worked under NORAD in conjuction with the USAF who also flew F101B, F-106, and F-89 (Air Guard) aircraft. The Voodoo was a reliable aircraft, very fast (limited to 1.83 which it could easly reach) and it liked to be flown fast 550 KIAS. The Voodo actually had a higher wing loading than the F-104. The two main weapons were extremely large (Air 2A Genie) and stored inside the weapons bay and would have been near impossible to avoid. Two additional infra red missiles (Aim 4-c) were attached externally to the belly rails. The F-106 (Delta Dart) was fast but did not seem to handle the intercept as well as the Voodoo because of the high cockpit overload for the single crew. Frontal attacks were common to 55,000 feet with re-attacks requiring a 15-20,000 downward split S at high G reaching max mach at the bottom followed by a rapid 60 degree nose up stern re-attack. This Voodoo did a good job for about 20 years and the MacDonell lineage lead directly to the Phantom.

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 52, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11058 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 50):
Wrong. F/A-18E/F's max range is shorter loaded with weapons compared to a F-35 loaded with weapons. The max range for the F/A-18E/F is stated in a clean configuration with no weapons and 5 drop tanks. F-35's stated range is based upon internal fuel only, with room for 8000kg of ordinance on top of a full fuel tank. Both will carry the same load, but on an apples to apples comparison (say, 2 AIM-120, 2 2000lb JDAM's, and a pair of Sidewinders), F-35 will carry that load further.

I would like to know (for sure) if the range indicated for the F-35 is clean or with ordancnace hanging off the wing. I'd bet clean. As we all know, salesmen like to put their wares in the best possible light. In a high-drag to high-drag comparison, I would be willing to bet the F-35 range is much closer to the F-18.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 50):
The $122m for F-35 is for a LRIP model, while for the Super Hornet, it is the price for for a gutted aircraft with no systems installed, while the price for the F-35 is for a fully kitted combat ready aircraft at LRIP. US fly away costs that are frequently bandied about is usually for the bare bones aircraft with no government furnished equipment (such as the all important radar, avionics, electronic warfare systems, etc) Once you purchase all the extras you need, then integrate them, the Super Hornet comes out to much more per aircraft that the F-35 (in fact, the actual unit acquisition cost for F/A-18E/F is 106.1 million dollars per aircraft according to the GAO), for an older, less capable platform. Furthermore, once you get away from LRIP model F-35's into full rate production aircraft, costs come down significantly.

The cost as indicated is quite likely for LRIP models. But the argument that the actual "as built" cost for production models down the line is specious at best since a) we don't know when they will be delivered, and what the inflation environment will be at that time, and b) we don't know what it will cost to correct the clear design and engineering problems the a/c have encountered as indicated in the multiple links I provided.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 50):
On the second point, Super Hornet does have SOME LO aspects; however, if one looks at it with a radar, it's still a easily detectable aircraft that will always look like a fighter jet on radar. F-35's radar signature is stated to be around the size of a golf ball in comparison.

But that's presupposes the F-35 is going to go into a close quarters combat environment...at which it is at a distinct disadvantage compared to existing fighters due to its' poor turn rate. Furthermore, if the F-35 is being used as a bomb truck into a defended target and has ordnance hanging off the wing, it will be just as bright on the radar as an F-18. If it is going in clean, then it will not have the ordnance that the F-18 does.

The only aspect of the F-35 for the Canadian situation where its' stealth might be a deciding factor is the intercept role -- and I really don't see the Russians sending their Blackjacks or Bears over the pole within our lifetime. There's not that many of them to start with, esp. te Blackjacks, and as for the Bears, we'd hear them before they got anywhere near Canadian airspace. Even US submariners can detect them. Submerged. For ground attack missions that we are ever likely to be engaged in, stealth will not be necessary, we'll be bombing the crap out of some poor 3rd world entity that probably doesn't deserve it.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 50):
What F-35 does better than every other fighter in existence right now (even F-22 in this matter), is the level of sensor integration on the aircraft. It's not only about "not being seen", but in seeing better than anyone else in a package that has all of the sensors working as one. In short, the sensors, the avionics, the electronic warfare system, communication / datalinks and weapons all work together as one on F-35. While previous aircraft designs have some elements of integration between various systems, it was very limited if at all possible in capabilities and performance as it required the pilot to be the final integrator of all the information from the various systems.

Actually, I'm quite aware of sensor fusing and the presentation to humans. I have been involved in the design of a new control room for Candu nuclear stations for some time. It's a big issue, how to present loads of info in a format that is recognizable and assimilatable. If the F-35 systems perform as advertised, then, yes, this does give it an advantage in a high-threat environment over existing platforms. But I stress the "high threat" element.

My uncle Tony flew Voodoos and F-106 Delta Darts in his NORAD days (loved the Voodoo, thought the DD was too much for one guy). Big Air Force guy. He and I have talked and exchanged letters about the F-35. He is convinced this thing is a colossal mistake. It's not just my opinion.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4804 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11022 times:

From another angle.....

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ers-subsidize-f_35-exports%3F.html

Quote:
"3. Except for some minor caveats by the parliamentary budget officer's report, there appears to be a consensus in Canada that they will be exempt from paying a full share of the cost to research, develop and test the F-35 in the United States. The memorandum of understanding Canada has signed purports to support that contention, and U.S. law, which ostensibly requires foreign weapon purchasers to pay the same price as the United States, is so full of loopholes that there may be a legal basis for the contention. The politics of the matter in the United States may be a little different, however.

According to the Government Accountability Office's new report on the F-35 , the cost to the United States to develop the F-35 has grown from $34.4 billion to $51.8 billion, and that 51-percent increase does not include the latest development cost overrun - up to about $56 billion and still counting. In other words, the development cost to U.S. taxpayers for each F-35 is about $21 million, and with the developmental and operational testing of the aircraft not currently scheduled to end until 2017, it is a virtual guarantee that still more problems and developmental costs will be discovered. (The costs to fully develop the 'A' model may prove to be slightly less than for the even more complex 'B' and 'C' models.)


The exemption from these costs that Canada - and apparently all other foreign purchasers of the F-35 - has been led to expect is yet another cost to U.S. taxpayers for this already unaffordable aircraft. It amounts to little more than a marketing edge and indirect subsidy for Lockheed, which apparently is not sacrificing corporate profits for foreign F-35 sales."



Who would blink first?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10889 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 52):
I would like to know (for sure) if the range indicated for the F-35 is clean or with ordancnace hanging off the wing. I'd bet clean. As we all know, salesmen like to put their wares in the best possible light. In a high-drag to high-drag comparison, I would be willing to bet the F-35 range is much closer to the F-18.

With ordinance. On a comparable mission, F-35 will fly 33% further than F/A-18E/F. Why? Because the more range you need from the F/A-18E/F, the more external fuel you require.

Remember, F/A-18E/F's rated payload capacity includes external fuel, and that means to fly F/A-18E/F to anywhere close to the max range would require external fuel tanks. Once you add external fuel to reach your maximum range, you become weight limited as you loose 4,300 kg of payload right there. Add internal fuel (6,780 kg of it for the E model), and the zero fuel weight (14,552 kg), you only have around 4,300 kg to work with for all of your ammunition and the pilot.

F-35 can fly further because it can fly with more fuel and still have tons of weight left over for munitions. For the F-35A, it is 13,300 kg empty, and can carry 8,390 kg of internal fuel onboard. Max take off weight is 31,800 kg, and that leaves around 10,110 kg of weight to play with for weapons, ammunition, and the pilot.

The advantage is clearly with F-35 in this regard; F-35 can fly maxed out on weapons and STILL be able to get very close to the maximum possible range. To do that with F/A-18E/F will require a trade off between fuel and weapons so to fly the same distance a F-35 is capable of, you are taking less weapons with you.

So, advantage for weapons load carrying capacity and range is clearly F-35.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 52):
The cost as indicated is quite likely for LRIP models. But the argument that the actual "as built" cost for production models down the line is specious at best since a) we don't know when they will be delivered, and what the inflation environment will be at that time, and b) we don't know what it will cost to correct the clear design and engineering problems the a/c have encountered as indicated in the multiple links I provided.

Historically, costs for full rate production aircraft decrease significantly over the production life. LRIP aircraft are almost always the most expensive aircraft due to the low volume produced and the general inefficiencies of factories not at full production.

Furthermore, the developmental and design issues being faced is not related to the model being purchased by Canada; they mostly apply to the STOVL B variant, not the A variant, or they occur under certain fly regimes that are easily addressed through modifications to the software by adjusting parameters. And with F-35's software developed using C+++ instead of Ada, it means that it is even easier to debugging and testing software. Upgrading will also be easy as the F-35 uses commercial PowerPC processors instead of MIL-STD-1760 processors that are easily replaceable.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 52):
But that's presupposes the F-35 is going to go into a close quarters combat environment...at which it is at a distinct disadvantage compared to existing fighters due to its' poor turn rate. Furthermore, if the F-35 is being used as a bomb truck into a defended target and has ordnance hanging off the wing, it will be just as bright on the radar as an F-18. If it is going in clean, then it will not have the ordnance that the F-18 does.

1. F-35's design goal is to match the flight performance of the F-16 at minimum. F-35 has greater persistence in a dogfight due to more fuel to begin with, and is designed for 9g turns compared to F/A-18E/F's 7.6g's. Truth be told, the USN has admitted that the older legacy Hornets have better dogfighting performance compared to the Super Hornet.

Furthermore, due to DAS, F-35's ability to make off-bore shots is greatly improved. While traditional helmet mounted sights are able to point weapons in the right direction, the missile still has to guide itself to that correct bearing and hope the target is still there and lock on. DAS can guide the missile post-launch to ensure it is going in the right direction and locks onto the appropriate target. If the missile is spoofed by chaff/flare/ECM then EODAS can direct the missile back to the correct target, in day, night, and in poor weather (remember HMCS are virtually useless at night and in poor weather conditions). And that's beyond the fact that DAS is tracking practically everything within visual range in all directions of the F-35.

Of course, this is beyond the fact that the F-35 will kill the F/A-18E/F before the Super Hornet even has a chance to see one... and with DAS, good luck sneaking up on one as well.

2. See earlier. To achieve the same range, other fighters will require external fuel eating into weapons payload. That means at best, you will be carrying 2 2,000lb JDAM's plus 2 AIM-120's and 2 AIM-9's anyways at the far edge of the Super Hornet's combat range. F-35 will carry that same weapons loadout without the need for external fuel, and will carry all of that internally. And if LO is not an issue for the mission, then the full 8,100kg of weapons payload is available, meaning F-35 will carry more weapons as well.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10673 times:

I would also point out that with F-35, the whole maintenance world will be turned upside down for many users. The planned F-35 maintenance program is similar to the Boeing C-17 Sustainment Partnership. What it means is that the OEM is responsible for providing consistent sustainment support at continuously raised benchmarked levels. Product support is thus managed through a long term performance-based partnership between the OEM and the customer. It also means a global supply chain. With the C-17, you can break down anywhere in the world and you will get parts with minimal paperwork from the nearest available stock, regardless of who owns it, be it the USAF, the RAF, Qatar, the UAE, or the RAAF. Through this program, Trenton has already provided spares to American C-17's when they broken down nearby. And other services, likewise, have done the same for us. The OEM keeps track of spare parts inventory around the world, and will transfer stock as required between nations.

Traditionally, this sort of program has never existed in a military procurement context. For example, when our CP-140 Aurora's need new wheels, the new wheels have to be flown in from Canada; we cannot borrow wheels from the local P-3 (which is almost exactly the same aircraft except for different avionics and systems fit) parts warehouse as the parts do not belong to us and does not match our inventory system.

This also means that we have committed to upgrading our aircraft in line with other users of the type. And that means no more CF-18's that cannot drop smart weapons and talk securely to allied wingmen during Gulf War I and in Kosovo. Our F-35's will be as advanced as other F-35's from allied nations. For this factor alone, the maintenance partnership program is a major bonus as it means we are flying the most advanced aircraft available at all times, and it helps keep long term maintenance costs low.


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 56, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10621 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 54):
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 55):

None of this matters because the arm-chair generals of the internet have a better understanding. Perhaps we should let them defend Canadian interests here and abroad, since they know more than anyone in government.   The CF-35 WILL happen, its just a question of when and how much.


User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 665 posts, RR: 3
Reply 57, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 10479 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 56):
The CF-35 WILL happen, its just a question of when and how much.

Not before 2020 (minimum). Price: Over $ 29 B for 65 aircraft.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 10450 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 57):
Quoting powerslide (Reply 56):
The CF-35 WILL happen, its just a question of when and how much.

Not before 2020 (minimum). Price: Over $ 29 B for 65 aircraft.



I have a question for you??

What was/are the Price the US Gov. has paid for the first 4 LRIP's for the F-35(A)??

The 5th LRIP is due soon... So we will have a more definitive price at this stage in development, since they are planning buying a couple more "A models" then was originally programed in LRIP 5, It should give us some idea where the current (Not actual 2016) costs are so far?? ...

With that we can track the possible fly away costs for the "A model" through the LRIP production cycles... As opposed the politically motivated non-sense that only is good for a few headlines without much basis in fact.

These numbers that the news media/political opposition parties keep throwing around are far from reality... The "A model" Price has fallen with each LRIP so far... So lets see what happens with the 5th, before we make any real estimates??

Regards,



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 59, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 10452 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 54):
With ordinance. On a comparable mission, F-35 will fly 33% further than F/A-18E/F. Why? Because the more range you need from the F/A-18E/F, the more external fuel you require.

Remember, F/A-18E/F's rated payload capacity includes external fuel, and that means to fly F/A-18E/F to anywhere close to the max range would require external fuel tanks. Once you add external fuel to reach your maximum range, you become weight limited as you loose 4,300 kg of payload right there. Add internal fuel (6,780 kg of it for the E model), and the zero fuel weight (14,552 kg), you only have around 4,300 kg to work with for all of your ammunition and the pilot.

F-35 can fly further because it can fly with more fuel and still have tons of weight left over for munitions. For the F-35A, it is 13,300 kg empty, and can carry 8,390 kg of internal fuel onboard. Max take off weight is 31,800 kg, and that leaves around 10,110 kg of weight to play with for weapons, ammunition, and the pilot.

I will concede that if it is in fact demonstrated. But I am not sure that the F-35 has done captive-carry fuel burn tests over longer ranges representative of a hi-lo-hi mission profile. So we don't really know about the range.

As to what it can or cannot carry, from Wikipedia (OK, not necessarily the authoritative source many claim it to be, but a decent starting point:

F-35 Armament

* Guns: 1 × General Dynamics GAU-22/A Equalizer 25 mm (0.984 in) 4-barreled gatling cannon, internally mounted with 180 rounds[N 14][92]
* Hardpoints: 6 × external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[92][96] and 2 internal bays with 2 pylons each[96] for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)[65] and provisions to carry combinations of:
o Missiles:
+ AIM-120 AMRAAM
+ AIM-132 ASRAAM
+ AIM-9X Sidewinder
+ IRIS-T
+ JDRADM (after 2020)[258]
+ AGM-154 JSOW
+ AGM-158 JASSM[104]
+ JSM
o Bombs:
+ Mark 84, Mark 83 and Mark 82 GP bombs
+ Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
+ Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
+ Paveway-series laser-guided bombs
+ Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
+ JDAM-series
+ B61 nuclear bomb[259]

So only four weapons total can be carried internally, and this would likely be for a penetration mission either two Sidewinders or two AMRAAMs for self-defense and either two JDAM, Paveways, etc, depending on the target. If the external load is 15,000 lb and the total weapons load is 18,000 lb, that kind of only leaves about 3,000 lb weapon load to remain stealthy, which is one of the primary reasons used to justify the purchase. And that's about 4,000 lb of what you are claiming for the beast.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 54):
Historically, costs for full rate production aircraft decrease significantly over the production life. LRIP aircraft are almost always the most expensive aircraft due to the low volume produced and the general inefficiencies of factories not at full production.

Furthermore, the developmental and design issues being faced is not related to the model being purchased by Canada; they mostly apply to the STOVL B variant, not the A variant, or they occur under certain fly regimes that are easily addressed through modifications to the software by adjusting parameters. And with F-35's software developed using C instead of Ada, it means that it is even easier to debugging and testing software. Upgrading will also be easy as the F-35 uses commercial PowerPC processors instead of MIL-STD-1760 processors that are easily replaceable.

I would agree that LRIP and full-scale costs should be different. However, the cost the CF is using is based on per aircraft not including R&D costs apportioned between all participants in the JSF program - which is a US law requirement. Somehow the CF seem to think either they are going to get a deal, or they can sell the public that they will get one.

C++ -> ever worked with it? I'd rather use Ada, actually. But C++ is 'net-centric friendly', so the mantra goes. perhaps explains why the F-22s can't actually communicate directly with one another. C++ is a bad joke foisted on a decent programming language, C. And as for the PowerPCs, I wonder how many Chinese knock offs will wind up in our fleet ? With back doors open, perhaps.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 54):
1. F-35's design goal is to match the flight performance of the F-16 at minimum. F-35 has greater persistence in a dogfight due to more fuel to begin with, and is designed for 9g turns compared to F/A-18E/F's 7.6g's. Truth be told, the USN has admitted that the older legacy Hornets have better dogfighting performance compared to the Super Hornet.

Then why is everyone concerned about the F-35 's poor turn rates ?

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...jsf-agility-against-critics-21060/

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 55):
I would also point out that with F-35, the whole maintenance world will be turned upside down for many users. The planned F-35 maintenance program is similar to the Boeing C-17 Sustainment Partnership.

Yah, these are usual referred to in business as SLAs (Service Level Agreements). There are always problems with them, they never work out as was intended by the payer, but usually work very well for the payee. In peacetime, all is swell, but if the balloon ever went up.....



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 10431 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 59):
So only four weapons total can be carried internally, and this would likely be for a penetration mission either two Sidewinders or two AMRAAMs for self-defense and either two JDAM, Paveways, etc, depending on the target. If the external load is 15,000 lb and the total weapons load is 18,000 lb, that kind of only leaves about 3,000 lb weapon load to remain stealthy, which is one of the primary reasons used to justify the purchase. And that's about 4,000 lb of what you are claiming for the beast.

In a stealthy configuration, one of your primary objectives is to knock down the door and open up the airspace. Remember, F-35 will be able to go into denied airspace, do whatever needs to be done, and make its way out while other non-stealthy fighters won't be able to even enter such airspace. And once the airspace opens up after targeting enemy air defences in your first few combat sorties, you can then hang weapons off the external pylons and be a bomb truck.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 59):
I would agree that LRIP and full-scale costs should be different. However, the cost the CF is using is based on per aircraft not including R&D costs apportioned between all participants in the JSF program - which is a US law requirement. Somehow the CF seem to think either they are going to get a deal, or they can sell the public that they will get one.

My understanding is that if you buy F-35's by being part of the JSF program, you do not have to pay research and developmental costs. It's only nations that buy outside of the JSF program through the US FMS program that will be charged a portion of the research and developmental costs. And it is not just Canada that is getting that deal; its the British, Italians, Dutch, Turks, Australia, Norwegians and Danes that are getting the same deal.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 59):

Then why is everyone concerned about the F-35 's poor turn rates ?

http://www.ainonline.com/news/single...1060/

Only outsiders are worried; the key important customers haven't showed they are worried, and people who are closer to the program have indicated that the F-35 performs extremely well compared to the chase F-16's that fly along side it, and can accelerate as fast as the F-22.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 59):
Yah, these are usual referred to in business as SLAs (Service Level Agreements). There are always problems with them, they never work out as was intended by the payer, but usually work very well for the payee. In peacetime, all is swell, but if the balloon ever went up.....

You are not getting the point.

The Sustainment partnership program is based around performance metrics; if the OEM does not meet certain performance metrics, they do not get paid. If they beat those performance metrics, they get rewarded for doing so. As such, there is big incentive for OEM's to work on ensuring that such metrics are met as it means they get paid. And on the C-17, the program works extremely well, resulting in a sustained mission capability rate of 83.2% for fiscal year 2004, while the worldwide launch departure reliability for 2005 was 95%. In FY 2006, the program resulted in a fleet-wide mission capable rate of 85.4%. Compared to other airlifters in service, this availability rate is extremely good in comparison.


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 10383 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 57):
Not before 2020 (minimum). Price: Over $ 29 B for 65 aircraft.


The F35A will be ready years before that and as far as cost, that is yet to be determined. $29B over 30 years might be accurate if you are willing to take the highest price the PBO review quoted. Only the government knows the real price since they are buying them, not some loony toon in Washington with an anti-F35 agenda. Like I said, it will happen.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 62, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10320 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 60):
In a stealthy configuration, one of your primary objectives is to knock down the door and open up the airspace. Remember, F-35 will be able to go into denied airspace, do whatever needs to be done, and make its way out while other non-stealthy fighters won't be able to even enter such airspace. And once the airspace opens up after targeting enemy air defences in your first few combat sorties, you can then hang weapons off the external pylons and be a bomb truck.

But again, look at the scenarios Canada is most likely, even ever likely, to face over the next 20-30 years: attacking largely 3rd world targets that are, for the most part, only lightly defended. A Kosovo/Serbia-type mission might be the most robust target we're ever likely to attack. And that's not pretty likely since the whole raison d'etre of NATO is now (finally) coming into question. Canada is not ever going to launch a war on its' own, and if push came to shove with the US, well, game over before it starts. Mr Putin and his VVS are simply not going to attack us, they're too busy selling energy to the West and making them dependent on Mother Russia.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 60):
My understanding is that if you buy F-35's by being part of the JSF program, you do not have to pay research and developmental costs. It's only nations that buy outside of the JSF program through the US FMS program that will be charged a portion of the research and developmental costs. And it is not just Canada that is getting that deal; its the British, Italians, Dutch, Turks, Australia, Norwegians and Danes that are getting the same deal.

It seems at least several people in both the Pentagon and the US Congress have a rather different p.o.v. than do you.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 60):
Only outsiders are worried

That may be true in the end. But if the F-35 is SO invulnerable due to its' AESA + other electronics, it wouldn't need the manouevreability.

An assortment of opinions:

Andrew Krepinevich has questioned the reliance on "short range" aircraft like the F-35 or F-22 to 'manage' China in a future conflict and has suggested reducing the number of F-35s ordered in favor of a longer range platform like the Next-Generation Bomber, but Michael Wynne, then United States Secretary of the Air Force rejected this plan of action in 2007. However in 2011, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) pointed to the restructuring of the F-35 program and the return of the bomber project as a sign of their effectiveness, while Rebecca Grant said that the restructuring was a "vote of confidence" in the F-35 and "there is no other stealthy, survivable new fighter program out there".

Former RAND author John Stillion has written of the F-35A's air-to-air combat performance that it “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run”, but Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley has countered that in an air-to-air configuration the F-35 has almost as much thrust as weight and a flight control system that allows it to be fully maneuverable even at a 50-degree angle of attack.

Chen Hu, editor-in-chief of World Military Affairs magazine has said that the F-35 is too costly because it attempts to provide the capabilities needed for all three American services in a common airframe. Dutch news program NOVA show interviewed US defense specialist Winslow T. Wheeler and aircraft designer Pierre Sprey who called the F-35 "heavy and sluggish" as well as having a "pitifully small load for all that money", and went on to criticize the value for money of the stealth measures as well as lacking fire safety measures. His final conclusion was that any air force would be better off maintaining its fleets of F-16s and F/A-18s compared to buying into the F-35 program. Lockheed spokesman John Kent has said that the missing fire-suppression systems would have offered "very small" improvements to survivability.

In the context of selling F-35s to Israel to match the F-15s that will be sold to Saudi Arabia, a senior U.S. defense official was quoted as saying that the F-35 will be "the most stealthy, sophisticated and lethal tactical fighter in the sky," and added "Quite simply, the F-15 will be no match for the F-35." After piloting the plane, RAF Squadron Leader Steve Long said that, over its existing planes, the F-35 will give "the RAF and Navy a quantum leap in airborne capability."

Consultant to Lockheed Martin Loren B. Thompson has said that the "electronic edge F-35 enjoys over every other tactical aircraft in the world may prove to be more important in future missions than maneuverability".

In 2011, Canadian politicians raised the issue of the safety of the F-35's reliance on a single engine (as opposed to a twin-engine configuration, which provides a backup in case of an engine failure). Canada had previous experience with a high-accident rate with the single-engine Lockheed CF-104 Starfighter with many accidents related to engine failures. Defence Minister Peter MacKay, when asked what would happen if the F-35’s single engine fails in the Far North, stated "It won’t".

I personally would say that if the plane turns out to be a dog (and I suspect it might bark), that the electronics, if they work as advertised, would give the F-35 a survivability edge. The pilot would know when to fire and forget, then turn for home base rather than engage further.

Personally, I don't really think the one-engine vs two-engine debate is all that important. Modern turbine engines are pretty damn reliable, and with a closely-paired set of engine, fratricide due to an engine failure is an issue.

I've bought a number of cars and houses over the years. I generally don't believe what's in the brochures. Despite being Canadian, perhaps in my heart I'm from Missouri.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (3 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 10299 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 62):
But again, look at the scenarios Canada is most likely, even ever likely, to face over the next 20-30 years: attacking largely 3rd world targets that are, for the most part, only lightly defended. A Kosovo/Serbia-type mission might be the most robust target we're ever likely to attack. And that's not pretty likely since the whole raison d'etre of NATO is now (finally) coming into question. Canada is not ever going to launch a war on its' own, and if push came to shove with the US, well, game over before it starts. Mr Putin and his VVS are simply not going to attack us, they're too busy selling energy to the West and making them dependent on Mother Russia.

However, being able to work with coalition forces is a major issue. We had trouble in Gulf War I and Kosovo because our CF-18's didn't have HAVE QUICK, and HAVE QUICK II radios installed, nor NATO compliant IFF systems. Our allies had to use less secure communications systems in order to talk to us, and there were restrictions placed on our operations so allied aircraft could properly identify us. Now magnify those problems and expand them ten-fold if we do not choose F-35 vs the others; Not only do we not have Link 22 and MADL to securely communicate with the package, we would endanger the entire package because we are more easily detectable compared to everyone else.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 62):
It seems at least several people in both the Pentagon and the US Congress have a rather different p.o.v. than do you.

It appears that the F-35 MoU disagrees with you.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 62):
That may be true in the end. But if the F-35 is SO invulnerable due to its' AESA + other electronics, it wouldn't need the manouevreability.

However, having the manoeuvrability plus the electronic edge will give it a overall performance advantage compared to legacy fighters. Both areas complement each other.


User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 64, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10094 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 40):
I would hate waiting weeks for parts for a Typhoon that apparently is a maintenance nightmare.

Apparently your unfunded opinion? If you have a clue about the Typhoon you would not write such a utter nonsense.

Look at the F-22 for a REAL maintenance nightmare.

Defective stealth coatings and cracks anyone?

Quote:
LO maintenance hours account for over half of all maintenance time, at a total of $354 million per plane the F-22 is not only the most expensive but also the most difficult fighter aircraft to maintain (Project On Government Oversight)

Lets hope the F-35 won't share same LO materials....  



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10011 times:

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 64):
Lets hope the F-35 won't share same LO materials....

They won't. In fact, there is talk of retrofitting the F-22 with the F-35's stealth coating material, which will reduce maintenance costs, and also apparently, improve stealth...


User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 66, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9868 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 65):
They won't. In fact, there is talk of retrofitting the F-22 with the F-35's stealth coating material, which will reduce maintenance costs, and also apparently, improve stealth...

Its hardly believable that the F-35 will have better RAM's wich improve RCS more, over the ones used in the F-22. Any source?



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 67, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 9861 times:

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 66):

First, the F-35 has to make it into customer hands.

What's the latest word on F-35 stealth against L-band radar?



What the...?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9767 times:

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 66):

Its hardly believable that the F-35 will have better RAM's wich improve RCS more, over the ones used in the F-22. Any source?
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=6169019

Quote:
Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va., agreed that retrofitting the F-22 with the F-35's coatings will save the Air Force a significant amount of time and money when it comes to maintenance.

"It's not going to transform the airplane, but what it's going to really do is make it much cheaper to operate the F-22 fleet, which is terribly important given its small size," he said.

Despite Lockheed Martin's statement that the F-35-derived coatings would not alter the F-22's radar cross-section, Goure said he suspects the new materials are likely to improve upon the Raptor's already impressive signature.

"I would be very surprised if this wasn't an improvement in stealth characteristics," he said.


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 69, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 9573 times:

F-35 Documentary. Politics of Procurement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl-oZqAnsWU


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 9544 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 63):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 62):
But again, look at the scenarios Canada is most likely, even ever likely, to face over the next 20-30 years: attacking largely 3rd world targets that are, for the most part, only lightly defended. A Kosovo/Serbia-type mission might be the most robust target we're ever likely to attack. And that's not pretty likely since the whole raison d'etre of NATO is now (finally) coming into question. Canada is not ever going to launch a war on its' own, and if push came to shove with the US, well, game over before it starts. Mr Putin and his VVS are simply not going to attack us, they're too busy selling energy to the West and making them dependent on Mother Russia.

However, being able to work with coalition forces is a major issue. We had trouble in Gulf War I and Kosovo because our CF-18's didn't have HAVE QUICK, and HAVE QUICK II radios installed, nor NATO compliant IFF systems. Our allies had to use less secure communications systems in order to talk to us, and there were restrictions placed on our operations so allied aircraft could properly identify us. Now magnify those problems and expand them ten-fold if we do not choose F-35 vs the others; Not only do we not have Link 22 and MADL to securely communicate with the package, we would endanger the entire package because we are more easily detectable compared to everyone else.



Fair point but how much of an effort, what % of sorties, what % of weapons delivered was the RCAF responsible for? How critical was the RCAF's participation in terms of volume in those campaigns? If Canada were a major military ally in NATO campaigns in 3rd world countries, the argument would be quite convincing. As things stand, Canada is a not a major military power within NATO. A responsible procurement policy would IMO then dictate that you buy what you can reasonably afford to participate in NATO campaigns to the best of your abilities. Your participation is appreciated within the limits of what you can spend on fighters and you are not impairing in any significant way NATO air power because it is understood that you are not a major military power. Keeping up with the NATO Joneses is not a valid procurement policy for the simple reason that you -as a sovereign nation- have no control over what they buy...

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 71, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 9549 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 70):
Fair point but how much of an effort, what % of sorties, what % of weapons delivered was the RCAF responsible for? How critical was the RCAF's participation in terms of volume in those campaigns? If Canada were a major military ally in NATO campaigns in 3rd world countries, the argument would be quite convincing. As things stand, Canada is a not a major military power within NATO. A responsible procurement policy would IMO then dictate that you buy what you can reasonably afford to participate in NATO campaigns to the best of your abilities. Your participation is appreciated within the limits of what you can spend on fighters and you are not impairing in any significant way NATO air power because it is understood that you are not a major military power. Keeping up with the NATO Joneses is not a valid procurement policy for the simple reason that you -as a sovereign nation- have no control over what they buy...

I'd just like to point out that Canadian CF-18's have dropped 30% of all ordinance in Libya so far, all with only 6 aircraft in theater. I think we are major NATO player not just in Libya but also in Afghanistan.

P.S. There is no more "Royal" in Canadian Air Force.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 9508 times:

Quoting faro (Reply 70):
Fair point but how much of an effort, what % of sorties, what % of weapons delivered was the RCAF responsible for? How critical was the RCAF's participation in terms of volume in those campaigns? If Canada were a major military ally in NATO campaigns in 3rd world countries, the argument would be quite convincing. As things stand, Canada is a not a major military power within NATO. A responsible procurement policy would IMO then dictate that you buy what you can reasonably afford to participate in NATO campaigns to the best of your abilities. Your participation is appreciated within the limits of what you can spend on fighters and you are not impairing in any significant way NATO air power because it is understood that you are not a major military power. Keeping up with the NATO Joneses is not a valid procurement policy for the simple reason that you -as a sovereign nation- have no control over what they buy...

Faro

As I said, as we didn't have the proper equipment to securely fly alongside our allies, nor the avionics to drop precision guided munitions without having other aircraft designate the target, we were of limited use in Gulf War I and Kosovo, and it reflected in our sortie rate. As pointed out in Libya, as we now have fully upgraded aircraft that can fly along side our allies and independently drop precision guided munitions, we take part in a very large share of combat sorties. It's very clear that if you don't have aircraft that can effectively work with your allies, your participation will be limited at best because you are of no use.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 73, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 9404 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 72):

As I said, as we didn't have the proper equipment to securely fly alongside our allies, nor the avionics to drop precision guided munitions without having other aircraft designate the target, we were of limited use in Gulf War I and Kosovo, and it reflected in our sortie rate. As pointed out in Libya, as we now have fully upgraded aircraft that can fly along side our allies and independently drop precision guided munitions, we take part in a very large share of combat sorties. It's very clear that if you don't have aircraft that can effectively work with your allies, your participation will be limited at best because you are of no use.

...and all of those Canadian sorties have been done with the oldest, lowest tech planes in the operation...with zero stealth. The Libya operations are typical of what Canada has contributed over the past decades and is likely to be asked to contribute in the future.

Canada has no need for the extra expense of stealth...none. The F-117 shot down in the Balkans has shown that stealth can be defeated. Canada hasn't needed stealth in the past and won't need it in the future.

There are plenty of very advanced aircraft for sale now which would more than suit our needs, present and future...and available sooner.



What the...?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 74, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 9382 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 73):
...and all of those Canadian sorties have been done with the oldest, lowest tech planes in the operation...with zero stealth. The Libya operations are typical of what Canada has contributed over the past decades and is likely to be asked to contribute in the future.

Canada has no need for the extra expense of stealth...none. The F-117 shot down in the Balkans has shown that stealth can be defeated. Canada hasn't needed stealth in the past and won't need it in the future.

There are plenty of very advanced aircraft for sale now which would more than suit our needs, present and future...and available sooner.

Older aircraft require sophisticated packages, such as EW, AWACS, and SEAD aircraft operating alongside them to protect them and to achieve the most effective combat performance out of them. Note the operators that intend on operating 4.5 gen fighters long term; they operate or will operate AWACS, EW, SEAD, and even stealth fighters to operate along side their 4.5 gen fighters. We don't have the money nor the manpower to operate EW, AWACS, SEAD, and stealth aircraft to protect older aircraft types.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 75, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 9380 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 73):
Canada has no need for the extra expense of stealth...none. The F-117 shot down in the Balkans has shown that stealth can be defeated. Canada hasn't needed stealth in the past and won't need it in the future.

My understanding of the F-117 shootdown is that it was caught by searchlights which brought out shadow on higher clouds - pretty low tech solution. Also that an officer of one of our allied services provided the Serbs with the a/c planned route.

But I'm tired of talking about the JSF.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 9364 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 73):
There are plenty of very advanced aircraft for sale now which would more than suit our needs, present and future...and available sooner.

Also more expensive and less capable.


User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 665 posts, RR: 3
Reply 77, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9470 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 73):
The Libya operations are typical of what Canada has contributed over the past decades and is likely to be asked to contribute in the future.

Canada has no need for the extra expense of stealth...none. The F-117 shot down in the Balkans has shown that stealth can be defeated. Canada hasn't needed stealth in the past and won't need it in the future.

There are plenty of very advanced aircraft for sale now which would more than suit our needs, present and future...and available sooner.

        

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 73):
and is likely to be asked to contribute in the future.

Don't forget the russians in the north, with 65 F-35 we could scare them.      

Quoting powerslide (Reply 76):
Also more expensive and less capable.

Prove me (with real facts) that a Super Hornet fleet, with maintenance performed in Canada, will cost more than a fleet of 65 F-35 (for $29 billions), with maintenance performed in the U.S..


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 78, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 9464 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 77):
Prove me (with real facts) that a Super Hornet fleet, with maintenance performed in Canada, will cost more than a fleet of 65 F-35 (for $29 billions), with maintenance performed in the U.S..

Either fleet will be maintained in Canada, by the Canadian Forces. You really don't know what you're talking about.  


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9392 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 76):
Also more expensive and less capable.

Yep. Any check the actual unit cost of a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet with all of the trimmings? $106.1 million dollars per copy please. How about Eurofighter? $130.9 million dollars please. Ok, how about Rafale? $101 million dollars per copy.


User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 665 posts, RR: 3
Reply 80, posted (3 years 4 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9229 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 78):
by the Canadian Forces

Really ?

http://www.itservices.harris.com/news.asp?act=lookup&pr_id=3095
http://www.mas.l-3com.com/doc/Press_...Renouvellement_Contrat_CF18_EN.pdf
http://www.boeing.ca/ViewContent.do?...rnization%20Project%20for%20Canada


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8940 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 80):
Quoting powerslide (Reply 78):
by the Canadian Forces

Really ?

http://www.itservices.harris.com/news.asp?act=lookup&pr_id=3095
http://www.mas.l-3com.com/doc/Press_...Renouvellement_Contrat_CF18_EN.pdf
http://www.boeing.ca/ViewContent.do?...anada

Those are upgrade contracts, not service contracts. Major upgrades and refurbishment work is done via third party contractors. Nobody, even the USAF does major systems upgrades on their aircraft.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 82, posted (3 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 8886 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 81):
Those are upgrade contracts, not service contracts. Major upgrades and refurbishment work is done via third party contractors. Nobody, even the USAF does major systems upgrades on their aircraft.

At least the costs for gen 4.5 craft are known. The F-35 is still years away and nobody knows what it will cost...except every estimate puts it at over 130 million a copy. I don't think there are too many people willing to put their own cash on a bet that they will even make that mark.

As for capability, except for, (questionable), stealth, what can the f-35 do that the Typhoon or Super Hornet or even Gripen Ng can't?

Gripen has an extra advantage of being a STOL fighter, able to take off and land in 2000'.

As for AWACS support, unless Canada is attacked, AWACS, (or similar), support will be supplied in theatre by someone else...just like it always has...that is unless Canada decides to start attacking on its own.

Canada doesn't now and never will need stealth. Stealth is a first strike tool and Canada isn't a first strike country.



What the...?
User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 83, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8749 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 68):
Despite Lockheed Martin's statement that the F-35-derived coatings would not alter the F-22's radar cross-section, Goure said he suspects the new materials are likely to improve upon the Raptor's already impressive signature.

"I would be very surprised if this wasn't an improvement in stealth characteristics," he said.

Firstly thanks for that link. But this is no fact the F-35 coatings are better then the ones used in the F-22. It remains to be seen if they can reduce RCS and maintenance costs.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 79):
Yep. Any check the actual unit cost of a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet with all of the trimmings? $106.1 million dollars per copy please. How about Eurofighter? $130.9 million dollars please. Ok, how about Rafale? $101 million dollars per copy.

You can't compare the costs of the Rafale/ Eurofighter to the JSF. How many JSF are build?? This is a apples to oranges comparison.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
The F-35 is still years away and nobody knows what it will cost...except every estimate puts it at over 130 million a copy

      I bet it will be over 130million soon. Not to talk in ten years. F135 engine costs jump $2.8 billion anyone?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
As for capability, except for, (questionable), stealth, what can the f-35 do that the Typhoon or Super Hornet or even Gripen Ng can't?


It has sure partly a edge on the avionics and sensors but the F-35 has a bad wingload, is slower, very probable worse IR signature and worse acceleration, less hardpoints, no METEOR integration, etc..

F-35 Maintenance Man-Hours per Flight Hour will be also interesting to find out....

Eurofighter....- 9 to 1
F-18E/F........- 6 to 1
F-18E/F........- 15 to 1 (different source)
Saab Gripen..- 10 to 1
B2 ...... -124
F-117......-113
F-22.....??? (more then 50)



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 84, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8736 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
Gripen has an extra advantage of being a STOL fighter, able to take off and land in 2000'.

You could be right.
The requirement of sweden is to operate from remote airfields, which are located all around sweden and are only used from time to time..

When i was in sweden some years ago, i crossed a strange crossroad in the middle of a forest and...

...saw, that i stopped my car on a runway in the middle of a forest.

Some small shelter were also seen in the background.


I could imagine canada to have similar requirements.
The countries are very equal when if comes to flora and population.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8708 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
At least the costs for gen 4.5 craft are known. The F-35 is still years away and nobody knows what it will cost...except every estimate puts it at over 130 million a copy. I don't think there are too many people willing to put their own cash on a bet that they will even make that mark.

No, they are not. How about major upgrades costs because we will be forced to develop the upgrades independently? At least with the CF-18 IMP, we could leverage off the upgrade packages developed by the USN.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
As for capability, except for, (questionable), stealth, what can the f-35 do that the Typhoon or Super Hornet or even Gripen Ng can't?

Fly further, carry more, and superior avionics package. Also, more tangible and long term Industrial Regional Benefits, and better interoperability with key allies.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
Gripen has an extra advantage of being a STOL fighter, able to take off and land in 2000'.

We don't need STOL capabilities for our fighters. We never had the requirement, and we never will.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
As for AWACS support, unless Canada is attacked, AWACS, (or similar), support will be supplied in theatre by someone else...just like it always has...that is unless Canada decides to start attacking on its own.

Our foreign policy requires that we be able to work with allied nations right from day one of a campaign. And if you don't have equipment that can do that, we aren't achieving our foreign policy goals.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
Canada doesn't now and never will need stealth. Stealth is a first strike tool and Canada isn't a first strike country.

That will be like saying in the early 20th century we don't need an air force because Canadians don't bomb other nations and will never will be bombed. You do realize stealth is more of a survival tool rather than an offensive weapon? It gives our pilots a better chance against similarly equipped opponents.

[Edited 2011-04-27 22:07:01]

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 86, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8714 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 84):

I am personally biased towards the Gripen NG. Maybe it's an underdog thing but the specs look pretty darned impressive. It will have the latest radar, significantly more internal fuel, 1.2M supercruise and I am pretty sure Canada could get a piece of the production pie. Perhaps we could go in on some UAV's together.

Being able to land in 2000' would be a great asset since Canada is festooned with 3000' runways...and 2000' stretches of road.

Regardless, I would rather any plane other than the F-35. I don't think it will ever live up to its hype. Nothing will happen until after the election in a couple of weeks...but I don't think we will stand for unlimited delays and cost hikes.

We have had enough of this sort of thing with the S-92. One day we may learn our lessons.



What the...?
User currently offlineAutothrust From Switzerland, joined Jun 2006, 1595 posts, RR: 9
Reply 87, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8721 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
Gripen has an extra advantage of being a STOL fighter, able to take off and land in 2000, 1.2M supercruise

?? The Typhoon needs only 300meter for takeoff and 600m for landing and can cruise at 1.6 (clean).

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
Canada doesn't now and never will need stealth. Stealth is a first strike tool and Canada isn't a first strike country.

Thats exactly the question, if you want a first strike tool stealth is surely important.



“Faliure is not an option.”
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 88, posted (3 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8701 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 86):
I am personally biased towards the Gripen NG. Maybe it's an underdog thing but the specs look pretty darned impressive.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 86):
Regardless, I would rather any plane other than the F-35. I don't think it will ever live up to its hype.

Hmm, one aircraft is on paper, while the other one is flying and in testing. One has practically no customers and is European while the other one has potentially over 1500 orders - and American. One will be outdated, and practically useless in 15 years, while the other one is arguably more advanced than the Raptor. Comparing the NG to the JSF is like comparing a dull knife to a sharp one. With that in mind, Canada is not going to waste any money on a less advanced, non-stealth, 4.5gen fighter when the JSF is all the NG MIGHT be, plus more. The only European fighter Canada would ever look at is the Typhoon and even that is too expensive. We don't buy fighters based on popularity, this isn't Ace Combat.  


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 89, posted (3 years 4 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8614 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 85):

We don't need STOL capabilities for our fighters. We never had the requirement, and we never will.

You mean like stealth?

Quoting powerslide (Reply 88):

Hmm, one aircraft is on paper, while the other one is flying and in testing. One has practically no customers and is European while the other one has potentially over 1500 orders - and American. One will be outdated, and practically useless in 15 years, while the other one is arguably more advanced than the Raptor.

One is flying and testing...at twice the price, so far and years behind schedule. If it ever gets into production and if Canada ever sees the planes it has ordered and if it doesn't start failing well before its time like the F-22, if the L-band radar doesn't punch right through the frontal aspect only stealth, if the P&W engines can actually make their promised power and service life.

Yah...it's looking like a real winner so far.

The F-35 may have more advance electronics, if they aren't obsolete by the time anybody gets one. The thing about electronics, though...they can always be upgraded. Not an advantage to the F-35.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 85):
Our foreign policy requires that we be able to work with allied nations right from day one of a campaign. And if you don't have equipment that can do that, we aren't achieving our foreign policy goals.

What aircraft being offered won't work with the allies? They are all being built by allies and intended to work with allies in theatre. So far, the only plane that is having issues communicating with allies is the F-22...the current newest and bestest kid on the block.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 85):
That will be like saying in the early 20th century we don't need an air force because Canadians don't bomb other nations and will never will be bombed. You do realize stealth is more of a survival tool rather than an offensive weapon? It gives our pilots a better chance against similarly equipped opponents.

You do realise that the stealth of the F-35 won't protect it against L-band or any ground based radar since it's only stealthy aspect is from directly in front? What if it has to travel further than 600nm? Oops...that means following it with a very unstealthy tanker or using equally unstealthy drop tanks.

It's internal bay can carry 4 aim-120's, or 2x2000lb bombs and 2 aim-120's or 8 small diameter bombs. If you need to carry more, there goes the stealth...and the money wasted on stealth. And how about that F-35 gun...? Oh yah...it doesnt' have one unless one bolts on an unstealthy gun pod...ala the f-4, 1968...back when they were rediscovering that a fighter should really have a gun.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 88):
The only European fighter Canada would ever look at is the Typhoon and even that is too expensive. We don't buy fighters based on popularity, this isn't Ace Combat.

You really shouldn't mention price. The F-35 will be at least expensive as the Typhoon...and we're nowhere near the final price. What's the final price? Nobody knows.

At least the 4.5's actually have seen combat...the F-35 is years away from the party and the current Gen 5 couldn't make it because somebody forgot to make the plane capable of communicating with allies...oops. At least in Ace Combat, the radios work.

So much for superior electronics. But that could never happen with the really, really superior F-35...right...?



What the...?
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 90, posted (3 years 4 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8588 times:

I'm really hoping that come May 2nd the CPC gets that majority, there is still a very good chance that will happen. If that happens, the CF-35 contract should be signed shortly after which will only infuriate the lefties even more.  Then it's too late and the Air Force will get the fighter they deserve.

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 91, posted (3 years 4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8533 times:

I was tired of talking about the F-35, Powerslide's last post gave me some energy:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 90):
I'm really hoping that come May 2nd the CPC gets that majority, there is still a very good chance that will happen. If that happens, the CF-35 contract should be signed shortly after which will only infuriate the lefties even more. Then it's too late and the Air Force will get the fighter they deserve.

You don't have to be a "leftie" (whatever that actually means) in order to oppose the whole F-35 effort. It can be well opposed on very good (and non-political) grounds, i.e., the a/c won't do what it has been advertised to do, and for nowhere near the listed sticker price.

As well, in any reasonable discussion, there is no need to slag or denigrate anyone who might oppose you, viz:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 18):
Do you work for the Liberal Party, because clearly you don't have a clue in this matter.
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 29):
Nice to see the arm-chair general back discussing something he has no clue about.
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 35):
I can't wait for the Conservatives to get a majority, purchase the aircraft we need and shut up all the whiny, useless left minority.
Quoting powerslide (Reply 78):
You really don't know what you're talking about.

I would point out ThePointblank, although I disagree with his p.o.v., at least sticks to the facts, as much as they are known about the F-35 and other a/c.   

A certain lack of respect and/or civility in any discussion will, IMHO, keep you at your current RR level, er, zero.

Re Reply 35, if by "left" you mean non-CPC voters, then that would be the Canadian electorate all throughout its' 20-th and 21-st century history. In that time the Conservatives have never had an absolute majority of votes. In fact to my knowledge no one has. It would be very ironic, in light of that post, that we might have to learn the phrase Prime Minister Layton on May 3rd. Not likely, but now not impossible. Or that dreaded coalition.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 71):
I'd just like to point out that Canadian CF-18's have dropped 30% of all ordinance in Libya so far, all with only 6 aircraft in theater. I think we are major NATO player not just in Libya but also in Afghanistan.

Libya is a side show, admit it. 6 CF-18s should be able to haul 30% of the iron. Whether or not Canada really is a major player in any NATO-led effort so far is a question for another thread, and in Non-Av.


Quoting powerslide (Reply 71):
P.S. There is no more "Royal" in Canadian Air Force.

If you're going to pick nits, I'll pick one back: it's the Canadian Forces, not Canadian Air Force.

I checked your profile and you listed age 21-25, no occupation indicated. However, Replies 21 & 48 would indicate you are a member either of the standing forces or the reserve. True ? And likely in mx, from the content.

But if you wear the uniform, you should know that, right ?

All this jabbering about the F-35 really tires me out...Ciao for now.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (3 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8507 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 89):
You mean like stealth?

Stealth will become a operational requirement for aerial combat. Reducing your radar signature has been the aim of combat aircraft designers since World War II. Stealth technology is merely the current expression of this.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 89):
What aircraft being offered won't work with the allies? They are all being built by allies and intended to work with allies in theatre. So far, the only plane that is having issues communicating with allies is the F-22...the current newest and bestest kid on the block.

F-35 will have Link 22 and MADL built in from the start. MADL will be the future USAF and USN aircraft datalink, so being able to integrate right from the get go will be extremely important if we wish to be interoperable with the US military.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 89):
One is flying and testing...at twice the price, so far and years behind schedule. If it ever gets into production and if Canada ever sees the planes it has ordered and if it doesn't start failing well before its time like the F-22, if the L-band radar doesn't punch right through the frontal aspect only stealth, if the P&W engines can actually make their promised power and service life.

Yah...it's looking like a real winner so far.

The F-35 may have more advance electronics, if they aren't obsolete by the time anybody gets one. The thing about electronics, though...they can always be upgraded. Not an advantage to the F-35.

1. F-35 is in low rate production. Full rate production is expected in 2014-2015.
2. If we order now, we get up front delivery slots as promised by the F-35 MoU. If we don't order now, our order goes to the back of a very long waiting list.
3. The stealth coating on F-35 is considerably more durable than F-22's coating, so much that they plan on upgrading the F-22 with the F-35's coating.
4. L-band radar is not very useful for targeting since it lacks precision. In order for someone to aim a radar-guided weapon at someone, you require the precision of the X and upper S band radars, which are found in fighter jets, and air defence targeting systems. Therefore, you might be able to 'see' a F-35 on your radar scope, you won't be able to aim a weapon and shoot at it.
5. The F135 engine has been able to demonstrate 50k lb of thrust, and all of the LRU's are replaceable with a set of very common hand tools. The engine has engine health software developed for it which will tell the maintainer what areas of the engine need attention even while the aircraft is in a mission.
6. F-35 has avionics that are easier to upgrade and develop for. Remember, the backbone of the F-35's avionics system is based upon C++ and C coding, and Motorola PowerPC chips. And those PowerPC chips are easily replaceable with more powerful versions in the future. Not to mention the heavy amount of COTS and MilCOTS systems as well...
7. Incorrect somewhat on the F-35's gun: F-35A has an internally mounted 25mm GAU-22/A Equalizer cannon mounted above the engine inlet on the left side of the plane. F-35B and C will have the same gun mounted in a specially developed stealth gun pod, and future growth ideas for that pod include EW, reconnaissance equipment, or possibly a rearward facing radar.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 89):
You really shouldn't mention price. The F-35 will be at least expensive as the Typhoon...and we're nowhere near the final price. What's the final price? Nobody knows.

Typhoon is experiencing high maintenance costs, which will be compounded if we purchase Typhoon because of the very long distance to the supply chain. At least with F-35, we can leverage off the US military's supply chain, and not to mention the performance-based global partnership for maintenance.


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (3 years 4 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8415 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 91):

You don't have to be a "leftie" (whatever that actually means) in order to oppose the whole F-35 effort. It can be well opposed on very good (and non-political) grounds, i.e., the a/c won't do what it has been advertised to do, and for nowhere near the listed sticker price.

Seems that all of the negativity against the F35 has come from people with opinions and not facts. Phrases such as "I think the Gripen is a better choice over the JSF" don't add anything to discussion. I'm surprised no has suggested a Russian fighter as a replacement yet judging by the level of aircraft "fanboism" in this thread.

"won't do what it has been advertised to do".... the jet is still in testing and so far progressing well, regardless of delays. Delays will happen with such an advanced aircraft and happens all the time, using this as an excuse to cancel the purchase is foolish.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 91):
A certain lack of respect and/or civility in any discussion will, IMHO, keep you at your current RR level, er, zero.

I didn't know that A.net was a popularity contest.   Frankly, I don't care.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 91):

If you're going to pick nits, I'll pick one back: it's the Canadian Forces, not Canadian Air Force.

We still have an Air Force, an Army and a Navy, all Canadian but separate branches. As a whole they are addressed as the Canadian Forces, but there hasn't been a Royal in AF for years now.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 94, posted (3 years 4 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8390 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 93):
I didn't know that A.net was a popularity contest. Frankly, I don't care.

That's quite evident.   

I never said A.net was a popularity contest, you implied it. Civility, however, is a strong indicator of maturity.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 93):
Seems that all of the negativity against the F35 has come from people with opinions and not facts.

Can I infer from the above, then, that your statements are facts, and any statement contrary to yours is an opinion ?



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 95, posted (3 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8358 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 94):
Can I infer from the above, then, that your statements are facts, and any statement contrary to yours is an opinion ?

That is the dilemma then isn't it, who do you trust. On one side you have the Canadian and US governments, current and ex CAF fighter pilots, and other highly influential people that are involved in the program vouching for the JSF. On the other you have the "opposition" who consist of people from "think tanks" that call the JSF Cadillac's of the sky. They offer no hard technical data that suggests why the JSF isn't right for Canada. The only real useful source I've read was from APA and even then some might say they are highly bias - not everyone can fly the F22.

It will come down to one thing, who is going to lead this country that will decide the fate of the CF35. It's just a shame that, again, politics are playing with the lives of CF personnel. Like I said, the military is expensive and you either buy the best, or don't buy anything at all.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 96, posted (3 years 4 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 8329 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 95):
That is the dilemma then isn't it, who do you trust.

This is actually the best post you've made in this long thread, IMHO.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 95):
On one side you have the Canadian and US governments, current and ex CAF fighter pilots, and other highly influential people that are involved in the program vouching for the JSF.

"Vouching for" is an expression of support, i.e., an opinion. Not necessarily supported by hard data.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 95):
. On the other you have the "opposition" who consist of people from "think tanks" that call the JSF Cadillac's of the sky. They offer no hard technical data that suggests why the JSF isn't right for Canada.

Which effectively is the same as the above.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 95):
It will come down to one thing, who is going to lead this country that will decide the fate of the CF35.

Yes, and I think Monday evening may be very interesting on many levels.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 95):
t's just a shame that, again, politics are playing with the lives of CF personnel.

As it did in WW2. Politics plays in the lives of pax on civil transports - fortunately in Canada not in a particularly catastrophic way recently, but it's there. In the lives of people working in industry. It's everywhere, and always has been.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 95):
Like I said, the military is expensive and you either buy the best, or don't buy anything at all.

You buy the best bang for the bucks available for the range of missions most likely to be required over the foreseeable future. You just don't go out and blindly buy the shiniest toy on the shelf.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5435 posts, RR: 30
Reply 97, posted (3 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 8273 times:

The F-22 has proven that no matter how nifty your communications suite is, it's useless if nobody else is using it. On every campaign Canada has been involved with, Americans were not the only allies we had to communicate and coordinate with.

1...how many years late and how much over budget?

2...and if they had delivered when they promised when we ordered, we'd already have them. Not much coming from the F-35 program can be taken seriously.

3...The stealth coating on the f-35 might be better than the coating on the f-22 but that doesn't change the vulnerability of the shape.

4...L band radar can be mounted on Russian fighters.

5...The engine, (as well as the lift fan for the B), has been so plagued with problems, until last week, they were working on a backup choice. The day they canceled the competing model engine, it was found the P&W engines had production problems.

6...The Typhoon, Raphael and Gripen all have advanced avionics, targeting and communications.

7...I'll give you the gun on the A, but a pod will never be stealthy.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 93):
Seems that all of the negativity against the F35 has come from people with opinions and not facts. Phrases such as "I think the Gripen is a better choice over the JSF" don't add anything to discussion.

...which is your opinion.

[Edited 2011-04-30 10:02:44]


What the...?
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (3 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 8232 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 97):
The F-22 has proven that no matter how nifty your communications suite is, it's useless if nobody else is using it. On every campaign Canada has been involved with, Americans were not the only allies we had to communicate and coordinate with.

F-22 wasn't equipped with Link 16, so it cannot datalink with other fighters. Plans to integrate standard Link 16 have been abandoned and proposals for a satcoms link - intended a few years ago to form part of the Block 40 "full global strike" configuration - have been abandoned. It is equipped with a F-22 specific system that is incompatible with other aircraft. Right now, the USAF is working on the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) which will allow different datalinks to share information with each other through an intermediary platform. Additionally, the USAF is working on the Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) which will allow for the first time, the F-22 to completely share ISR data from the F-22 to other platforms. Future upgrade spirals of the F-22 will include the MADL which will allow the F-22 to communicate with other stealthy platforms.

F-35 will be equipped with Link 16 and MADL from the start, meaning that it can datalink with existing aircraft and when low observability is required, it can switch to the MADL to communicate.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 97):

1...how many years late and how much over budget?

2...and if they had delivered when they promised when we ordered, we'd already have them. Not much coming from the F-35 program can be taken seriously.

3...The stealth coating on the f-35 might be better than the coating on the f-22 but that doesn't change the vulnerability of the shape.

4...L band radar can be mounted on Russian fighters.

5...The engine, (as well as the lift fan for the B), has been so plagued with problems, until last week, they were working on a backup choice. The day they canceled the competing model engine, it was found the P&W engines had production problems.

6...The Typhoon, Raphael and Gripen all have advanced avionics, targeting and communications.

7...I'll give you the gun on the A, but a pod will never be stealthy.

1. Tell me about any combat aircraft that was recently developed in the past 30 years that didn't come in late and over budget. I will also note that when we purchased the CF-18, the F/A-18 was still under development, so we purchased at the time a developmental platform. I think the CF-18 turned out quite well, don't you?

2. The issues with F-35 are with project management, which new leadership and more strict overwatch by the Pentagon will resolve.

3. F-35 will still be more stealthy compared to any other combat aircraft currently flying, save for the F-22. And F-35 will have better combat availability compared to F-22.

4. Yes, but it is not a targeting radar. L-band radars lack the resolution to accurately guide weapons to small targets. They are only useful in a search capacity. X-band and upper S-band radars have the resolution to guide weapons, that's why every SAM, fighter jet and AAA uses X-band radars to aim their weapons.

5. No, they were working on competing engines, as it was demonstrated in the past that having engine choices would reduce costs and would result in better performing engines in the long run for large production numbers, like in the F-16. Right now, the second engine was cancelled due to cost cutting, but in all likelihood, GE and RR might proceed to continue development of their F136 engine on their own. Remember, the F-16 was first rolled out with PW's F100 engine, but now, the vast bulk of F-16's in the USAF inventory uses GE's F110 engine.

6. F-35 will have a even more advanced radar and avionics package. For example, the BAE AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda EW system has demonstrated the ability to jam AESA radars, such as the one on the F-22. F-35 will also be able to see in all directions thanks to the DAS, which provides 360 degrees of coverage around the aircraft, meaning no aircraft, or missile activity will not be tracked and detected the moment something happens.

7. They have developed a stealthy pod specially for the F-35. And since Canada is interested in the A model, the issue of the gun is a moot point as it has an internal one instead.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 99, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8002 times:

Well, the Conservatives now have a majority government, Canada will be getting its CF-35s 

User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1542 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 7939 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 99):
Well, the Conservatives now have a majority government, Canada will be getting its CF-35s

Indeed, with a comfortable majority! Congrats to all the pro-F-35 a.netters, you will have your fighter for better or worse...

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 101, posted (3 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 7944 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 99):

Not just a great day for Canada, but a great day for the Canadian Military. Finally they'll get the equipment they deserve.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 102, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8019 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 99):
Well, the Conservatives now have a majority government, Canada will be getting its CF-35s
Quoting faro (Reply 100):

Indeed, with a comfortable majority! Congrats to all the pro-F-35 a.netters, you will have your fighter for better or worse...
Quoting powerslide (Reply 101):
Not just a great day for Canada, but a great day for the Canadian Military. Finally they'll get the equipment they deserve.

There's no doubt the F-35 program will now go ahead. I'll leave any political considerations for the Non-Av forum, but I'll hold you to the "get what they deserve" aspect. We'll see in time how this thing turns out. If it isn't good, there'll be a price to pay.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinekrisyyz From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (2 years 5 months 21 hours ago) and read 5709 times:

the Canadian Federal Budget is silent on what those new fighters will be...

"The budget document only says the government will buy “an affordable replacement” for the aging CF-18 fighter jets."
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/29/stealth-budget-cuts-in-defence

Just last week, the Harper government reaffirmed their commitment to the F-35, but then the junior Defence Minister stated that Canada is possibly look at alternatives to replace the CF-18 fleet. Yesterday the new budget came out and the F-35 was not mentioned once by name. Is this the beginning of the end for the Canadian procurement of the F-35?

What are the alternatives? Super Hornets until the F-35 cost and capabilities are more clear? I personally doubt Canada would seriously consider the Gripen or the Eurofighter.

KrisYYZ


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 104, posted (2 years 5 months 14 hours ago) and read 5624 times:

Quoting krisyyz (Reply 103):

I don't know how you got a CF-35 cancellation out of that little blurb of an article. All it says is an "affordable replacement" for the CF-18's, this means it could very well be the F-35. There is nothing substantial to say the CF-35 won't happen, unless someone says for sure that "Canada is looking for an F-35 alternative". Until then, news media puppets just make things up to sell their toilet paper.


User currently offlinekrisyyz From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 105, posted (2 years 5 months 12 hours ago) and read 5604 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 104):
Quoting krisyyz (Reply 103):


I don't know how you got a CF-35 cancellation out of that little blurb of an article. All it says is an "affordable replacement" for the CF-18's, this means it could very well be the F-35. There is nothing substantial to say the CF-35 won't happen, unless someone says for sure that "Canada is looking for an F-35 alternative". Until then, news media puppets just make things up to sell their toilet paper




Easy there... I was merely commenting on the fact that the 2012 Federal Budget didn't name the F-35 by name as replacement on the CF-18 fleet. The Harper govt has been dropping hints that they are becoming less committed to the F-35. We will probably see the F-35 in Canada, but I do think the best approach would to order Super hornets as a stop gap measure and wait until the F-35s unit price and performance capabilities are firmed.

However I would agree that the Toronto Sun is toilet paper  

KrisYYZ


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 106, posted (2 years 5 months 10 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

Quoting krisyyz (Reply 105):

I didn't mean for my post to come across as aggressive, sorry if you took it that way. In my opinion it doesn't make sense to spend $Billions on a throw-away fighter just to turn around and spend the same on the F-35. We are either buying the F-35, and only the F-35, or not. We cannot afford to buy something else just to wait for it to possibly become cheaper. We don't have the manpower to train on two fighter types in today's economy and budgets in such a short period of time. Just the transition from the CF-18 to the F-35 will be a shit show manpower wise.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 107, posted (2 years 5 months 6 hours ago) and read 5532 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 106):
I didn't mean for my post to come across as aggressive, sorry if you took it that way. In my opinion it doesn't make sense to spend $Billions on a throw-away fighter just to turn around and spend the same on the F-35. We are either buying the F-35, and only the F-35, or not. We cannot afford to buy something else just to wait for it to possibly become cheaper. We don't have the manpower to train on two fighter types in today's economy and budgets in such a short period of time. Just the transition from the CF-18 to the F-35 will be a shit show manpower wise.

No question a couple of good points:
a) can't afford to buy two types of a/c
b) transition will be a real PITA

That said, given the projected (and still theoretical) cost of full production F-35s, we won't even have enough cash to acquire 65. This is assuming Harper's (or Flaherty's) knife to the DoD budget continue - and in the budget it was stated that this would be so. So if we purchase say 50 is that even a viable force strength ?

See attached article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...-buying-a-warplane/article2388012/

It's important to assess what types of missions we are likely to be involved in. As indicated in the article, the mission the F-35A is really meant for is deep strike against a hard target. Canada is not going to be involved in anything like this over your or my lifetime. Which begs the question: why buy the F-35 when something else can do a reasonable job in the roles we're likely to be involved in: medium strike against a 2nd-level or 'soft' target (Libya, Bosnia, etc). So let's look realistically at what will do the most likely missions, not the least likely one.

So look at alternative platforms to perform the missions we're more likely to be involved in.

As for the Russians coming over the Pole: fantasy. Not going to happen. They're not even sending Bear nuisance missions down the Atlantic coast anymore. If we want to patrol the Arctic, we can acquire 3-4 Global Hawks. Or use a satellite in a highly elliptical orbit, which would make it 'hang' over the northern regions for a large part of the day.

Interoperability argument is a red herring. Look at the diverse types of platforms involved in Libya. No interoperability issues there. Discussed in current issue of AIR International, if you care to read it.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5440 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 107):
So if we purchase say 50 is that even a viable force strength ?

No. I cant find the link at the moment, but I read a quote from some high general that 65 was the minimum number the airforce could operate an effective force with.


User currently offlinekrisyyz From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 5432 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 106):
I didn't mean for my post to come across as aggressive, sorry if you took it that way. In my opinion it doesn't make sense to spend $Billions on a throw-away fighter just to turn around and spend the same on the F-35. We are either buying the F-35, and only the F-35, or not. We cannot afford to buy something else just to wait for it to possibly become cheaper. We don't have the manpower to train on two fighter types in today's economy and budgets in such a short period of time. Just the transition from the CF-18 to the F-35 will be a shit show manpower wise.
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 107):
No question a couple of good points:
a) can't afford to buy two types of a/c
b) transition will be a real PITA

Good point. I would also add the global move towards unmanned vehicles, no doubt that is well into the future.
The training, maintenance and cost of spare parts for the Super Hornet would be significant, AFAIK the Super Hornet is a vastly different beast than the F-18.

Canada needs a fighter for it's NORAD mission first and foremost. We need a long-range, multi-engine fighter that would be able to operate in both hot and high environments and the deep frozen north.

As you have pointed out, the increasing cost of the F-35 could result in Canada buying fewer jets. We all know how troubled some of Canada's military equipment procurement have been (same with the US). My main concern is that the CF-18 fleet will be barely operational by the time we have enough F-35s to live up to our NORD and NATO commitments.

KrisYYZ


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 110, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5434 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 108):
No. I cant find the link at the moment, but I read a quote from some high general that 65 was the minimum number the airforce could operate an effective force with.

Yes, that was my thought as well. So if we have less cash to spend, what can we acquire that achieves the 65 a/c threshold ? F-18E/F ? F-15 as configured for Saudi Arabia or Singapore ? Typhoon or Rafale outside chance.

Going back to Arctic patrols, 2-3 satellites in elliptic orbits would give you 24/7 coverage. If a manned platform is insisted on, we could approach the RAF about their Sentinel R.1s which will be out of service in 2014, without too many hours on them. But I think Global Hawk is the better choice, and avoids sending whatever aircraft is selected on a mission it was likely not designed for, and avoids having to provide infrastructure in the Arctic.

On the patrol topic, CF need to be thinking about an Aurora replacement. We will have 10 available until around 2025, even after all the wing work. P-8 Poseidon will be pretty expensive, what are the alternatives and how much will all this cost ?

With a reduced military capital budget, there will be a lot of infighting over which branch gets what slice. The submarines, joke that they are, will continue to gobble up a fair slice.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 111, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5392 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 107):
See attached article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...8012/

What the hell is "easy" bombing? This guy doesn't get it.

The only failure in this entire program is the PR campaign and the governments inability to sell this thing to the public.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 112, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5386 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 111):
What the hell is "easy" bombing? This guy doesn't get it.

That would be bombing an essentially undefended target. Like Libya.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 111):

The only failure in this entire program is the PR campaign and the governments inability to sell this thing to the public.

The real failure is the inability of both the government and military to justify to the public why Canada needs a "tip of the spear" weapon system when we all know the CF are not that type of force. With all due respect to the men and women enlisted, they are a support force.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 113, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5348 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 112):
With all due respect to the men and women enlisted, they are a support force.

With all due respect, you need education on some facts. Take Libya for example, we contributed a disproportionate amount compared to the small size of our Air Force. We were right behind the Brits and France in sorties with only 6 fighters, 3 A/A refuelers and 2 reconnaissance aircraft. As usual, we "punched above our weight". Only the US is capable, maybe Britain, of invading another country. We don't need a lot of "stuff" to be effective.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 112):
why Canada needs a "tip of the spear" weapon system when we all know the CF are not that type of force.

There are a handful of countries buying the F-35 with the reason NOT being aggression.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 114, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5307 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 113):
With all due respect, you need education on some facts. Take Libya for example, we contributed a disproportionate amount compared to the small size of our Air Force. We were right behind the Brits and France in sorties with only 6 fighters, 3 A/A refuelers and 2 reconnaissance aircraft. As usual, we "punched above our weight". Only the US is capable, maybe Britain, of invading another country. We don't need a lot of "stuff" to be effective.

I am very aware of the disproportionate contribution Canada made attacking a soft target.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 113):

There are a handful of countries buying the F-35 with the reason NOT being aggression.

Yes, Japan being an example, which is engaged in a long-term strategic dance with China. The probability of hostilities there is non-zero. In fact there already have been naval confrontations, particularly over the Paracel Islands.
Also Netherlands and likely Norway.

Italy ? No real need for them, other than to justify their smallish aircraft carrier. Can't afford them anyway given the recently imposed austerity program.
Turkey ? They will attack Kurdistan given any incentive, and keep a close watch on Syria, Iraq, and Iran. So from their p.o.v. a deep strike system is a good option. But even they are having second thoughts due to a) cost, and b) refusal of the US to release source code.
Oz ? They admit they can't defend their country from attack (assuming Indonesia) so not really sure about the justification, the F-35 couldn't possibly reach Indonesia other than West Irian w/o huge tanker support. And are rethinking purchase.
UK ? They will use them in blind support of the US.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 115, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5195 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 114):
attacking a soft target.

This is based on your experience in the operation or sitting at home getting news from the tube?


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 116, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 5192 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 115):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 114):
attacking a soft target.

This is based on your experience in the operation or sitting at home getting news from the tube?

This is based on my knowledge that the Gadhaffi regime (or what was left of it due to defections in the military) had no effective command and control structure. Without a brain, the weapon systems aren't of much value.

I live about 10 clicks from CFB Petawawa and have a number of friends and/or contacts in the forces. They were frequently updating me on "the situation".

I'm sure you have an opinion on nuclear power and the incident at Fukushima in Japan. Is this based on actual hands-on experience with nuclear power or do you get your intel by sitting in front of the tube ?

Your condescension is impressive.   

[Edited 2012-04-01 10:00:05]

[Edited 2012-04-01 10:01:03]


Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 117, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5143 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 116):
I live about 10 clicks from CFB Petawawa and have a number of friends and/or contacts in the forces. They were frequently updating me on "the situation".

Ah, so you live 10km from an Army base that pretty much had nothing to do with OP MOBILE. Your friends or contacts got their info from the same sources you did. The media.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 116):
I'm sure you have an opinion on nuclear power and the incident at Fukushima in Japan. Is this based on actual hands-on experience with nuclear power or do you get your intel by sitting in front of the tube ?

I don't have an opinion on nuclear power because I don't know enough about the topic. To say that nuclear power is dangerous without knowledge on the subject would be ignorant, much like Canadians commenting on the JSF program who think they know more than paid professionals in the field.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 118, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5124 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 117):
Ah, so you live 10km from an Army base that pretty much had nothing to do with OP MOBILE. Your friends or contacts got their info from the same sources you did. The media.

But they are in contact with those in OP MOBILE. You make a lot of assumptions, about the above AND the worthiness of the F-35.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 117):
I don't have an opinion on nuclear power because I don't know enough about the topic. To say that nuclear power is dangerous without knowledge on the subject would be ignorant, much like Canadians commenting on the JSF program who think they know more than paid professionals in the field.

So then can I take it that a) you are not in the 21-25 age range ? (very few "qualified professionals" in that age bracket, in my 35+ years of experience. I wouldn't have called myself a "qualified professional" until I was in my mid-30s) and b) "in the field" - does this imply you actually ARE in the Forces ? If you are, why not man up and put it in your profile ?Further, by assuming that those at Petawawa get their info from the media implies that you have some special access that is not public, ergo the military.

I have never said I think I know more. But I do have an opinion. As do you. As does Bill Sweetman, for that matter. What neither of has a right to is our own facts. And I will bet dimes to dollars that neither of us know all the facts.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 119, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4975 times:

Back to the actual issue of the F-35 purchase (or not).

Due to DND's dishonest activities regarding disclosure of information to Parliament re the true cost of the F-35, Harper et al are restructuring the whole procurement process:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ditor-generals-report-sources-say/

Generally the military will be very unhappy about civilians being in direct control of military procurement, but it appears this sort of behavior has also occurred re the Chinooks and the Cyclones: low ball the cost to Parliament to get the program through, then come back and ask for more money. Well, based on the latest budget, there will be less money going forward.

If DND can't be forthcoming about the actual program costs, then responsibility for the program should be stripped from DND. It's called accountability. What appears to these eyes to be the case is that DND officials seem to think the money is theirs, when in fact it's ours.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 120, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4893 times:

It just gets worse for the overall F-35 program and those associated with it. Some highlights directly from the Auditor-General himself:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...02/f35-auditor-general-report.html

I cannot but predict that this entire fiasco will end several careers (and rightly so). Several people will likely be given menial desk jobs that will, shall we say, "encourage" them to file for early retirement, with consequent penalties. Good. Trying to do an end run on the House Defense Committee and Parliament itself is unethical to say the least.

Given the statement from the Minister of Public Works that the procurement budget is frozen and that the actual cost of this thing is around $148M, not the $75M that DND presented to Parliament, this implies that DND, if it goes ahead at all, will only be ably to acquire 30-35 frames, not 65. Hardly a viable force, ergo: what's the point ?



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 121, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4879 times:

Im just waiting the day when a RCAF jet encounters a PLAAF J-20. If we dont get F-35s, it WILL be F/A-18E/Fs, if you are going to nickel and dime your fighter purchase might as well get something you are familiar with.

Pretty much, with the Rhino it will be the Canadian flying along, then all of a sudden the J-20 fires up its radar, showing the Rhino there is a jet in a perfect kill position and if there was conflict the Rhino would be dead. There will also be a PLAAF pilot laughing his ass off as an oblivious Canadian breaks hard in a panic when said radar is turned on.

Maybe we should invite Russia's T-50s over for the next Maple Flag... see how well that goes over. Today, a Super Hornet will suffice, but this fighter will have to last 30-40 years... a Hornet will not do so well in 15 years time.


Giving the fighter procurement to a civilian committee will simply get you the same results, with someone else hung out to dry in the end. How can you pin down a price when there is no final price yet, and people are constantly rolling 50 years of operation costs into the purchase price? I dont remember being quoted 20 years worth of parts, gas, and maintenance when I bought my car...

We should still be flying our old Chinooks, and the Cyclones should have been Merlins some time in the mid 90s. That is what you get when you let civilians run military purchases. Give the CAF money, let them buy what they want with it.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 122, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4873 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 121):
Im just waiting the day when a RCAF jet encounters a PLAAF J-20.

A scenario that will never occur. Any future op scenario for a CF-18E/F will be to shoot up and/or bomb some Tuareg encampment in Mauretania, a return to Libya to deal with future 'issues', Bosnia (again) or, most likely, nothing.

China's strategic vision is to dominate the East China/Yellow Sea regions, to be the primus inter pares, and to have influence over both South Korea and Japan, and slowly ease the US out of it's protective role for Taiwan.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 123, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4815 times:

The report also shows that DND estimated the total cost of the F-35 program at $25 billion over 20 years when the decision was made internally to go forward with it in 2010. But in 2011, when DND responded to a report by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, officials said the cost would only be $14.7 billion.

In other words, they lied.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 124, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4801 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 123):
In other words, they lied.

Or the report did, which has the program over 36 years @ $25b vs. the DND's estimate of $15b over 20 years. So in actuality, the AG report is CHEAPER than the DND estimate.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 119):
What appears to these eyes to be the case is that DND officials seem to think the money is theirs, when in fact it's ours.

Even if you have a competition it is still the DND who writes the competitive parameters, not the politians, so the military still wins. In the end nothing has changed, the DND might get a light slap on the wrist and the CF-35 is still the aircraft of choice. Carry on.....


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 125, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4794 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 124):
Even if you have a competition it is still the DND who writes the competitive parameters, not the politians, so the military still wins.

If the competitive parameters are written in such a way that ONLY the F-35 qualifies, then it's a sham process. Unethical in any sense, in case you've heard of ethics. See the FWSAR effort. The military should never win, they should do as they're told, otherwise you have a dictatorship.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 124):
In the end nothing has changed, the DND might get a light slap on the wrist and the CF-35 is still the aircraft of choice.

We'll see. But if there is no money, how many can they actually buy ?

By the time the government indicates they will go for a contract, it might not be a Conservative government. I pray, anyway. Even Mulcair would be an improvement over the hypocrisy and thuggishness of Harpo et al. Maybe we can get young Justin to punch out McKay (for effect, of course).



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7562 posts, RR: 3
Reply 126, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4783 times:

Oroka

I take you mean give them CAN$xBN.

If they can get 65 fighters then good, if not, then they get less.

IMO, the notion put around that the military decide what they want, then simply give US the bill may have worked in the past, but not any more.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 127, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4861 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 125):
If the competitive parameters are written in such a way that ONLY the F-35 qualifies, then it's a sham process.

So if the DND, or whomever, writes the requirements and only the F35 qualifies it's a sham? I think its a sham that only the F35 meets the requirements of the future fighter jet for many countries. I don't see the Super Hornet meeting any requirements recently....

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 125):
We'll see. But if there is no money, how many can they actually buy ?

The $9B or so is already allocated into the budget for the fighter purchase and operation. Norway is getting theirs for $75million per, so there is no reason why we can't get the same price. I just hope they cut CBC funding altogether and this entire project will have more than enough money.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 128, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4810 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 127):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 125):
If the competitive parameters are written in such a way that ONLY the F-35 qualifies, then it's a sham process.

So if the DND, or whomever, writes the requirements and only the F35 qualifies it's a sham? I think its a sham that only the F35 meets the requirements of the future fighter jet for many countries. I don't see the Super Hornet meeting any requirements recently....

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 125):
We'll see. But if there is no money, how many can they actually buy ?

The $9B or so is already allocated into the budget for the fighter purchase and operation. Norway is getting theirs for $75million per, so there is no reason why we can't get the same price. I just hope they cut CBC funding altogether and this entire project will have more than enough money.

The $9B or so is already allocated into the budget for the fighter purchase and operation. Norway is getting theirs for $75million per, so there is no reason why we can't get the same price. I just hope they cut CBC funding altogether and this entire project will have more than enough money. Nobody believes this price, not even Lockmart, actually. If you do, I'd ask what you're smoking. Come on, more like $148M per.

Basically it comes down to what you define your posture to be. That is a derivative of your foreign policy, it does not stand by itself. Foreign policy, in case you had not noticed, is driven by civilians, not the military (that must hurt, eh?). Once foreign policy is defined, only then can a specific military posture be set. Since foreign policy is subject to a number of jigs and jags in politics, it is never going to be an exact science. Therefore, military posture needs to be as flexible as it can be, given the financial means available.

Given that, and I what I would think to be a reasonable threat assessment looking forward, despite anyone's wet dream, the CF are not going to be staring down the PLAAF in our lifetime. As I have said, a great 2nd tier force, useful for cleanup or for leading against a softer target. Any large engagement will be between the USAF and whomever.

You also need to look at China's issues: rampant inflation that may choke off growth, huge civil unhappiness, and huge resource deprivation, which is why they are trying to buy up as much of Africa as possible.

At the end of the day, DND can write the specs and make a recommendation. Fine. And Parliament will come back to them and say "this is what you can have" in terms of dollars. Make it fit. I've had to do this more than once, and it is painful to scale down your ambitions, but when you live off the public teat, that's always what you have to do.

Suck it and see.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 129, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4803 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 128):
Suck it and see.

Awww, getting upset are we. Fact of the matter is, unless something drastic happens, like the US cancelling the program for good, the F35 will happen in Canada regardless of what the media or any non-conservative voter says or believes. That is the nice thing about a majority, the opposition can whine and complain, but can't do much besides that.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 130, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4784 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 123):
The report also shows that DND estimated the total cost of the F-35 program at $25 billion over 20 years when the decision was made internally to go forward with it in 2010. But in 2011, when DND responded to a report by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, officials said the cost would only be $14.7 billion.

In other words, they lied.

If you actually read the AG's report (and not just news pieces), it presents a more clear picture of what the AG actually said verses soundbites:
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/En...sh/parl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html

Basically they suggest that DND manipulated process and did not undertake a proper competition around 2009~2010. Its not the worst thing to say, DND does this frequently but with different tactics (like the C-130J, C-17, CH-47F, etc, etc, etc).

Of course this is being portrayed as negligence, when the AG report suggests that this was a function of the involvement in the development program.


Also the report states that, "while ministers were told that the 2006 MOU did not prevent Canada from having a competition in the future, they were not told of the practical limitations of doing so. For example, as a partner in the development of the F-35, National Defence’s long-standing relationship with and access to proprietary data from one of the prime contractors, coupled with the unique benefits offered only to partners, meant that other potential aircraft manufacturers would be disadvantaged from competing fairly."

[Edited 2012-04-03 17:38:12]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 131, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4777 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 130):
If you actually read the AG's report (and not just news pieces), it presents a more clear picture of what the AG actually said verses soundbites:



http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/En...rl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html#hd5k

Did you read it? Look at the dates and figures above taken from the report. It is clear who lied to whom and when. Unless, you are saying the Auditor is lying. Is that what you are saying?


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 132, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4768 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 131):



http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/En...rl_oag_201204_02_e_36466.html#hd5k

Did you read it? Look at the dates and figures above taken from the report. It is clear who lied to whom and when. Unless, you are saying the Auditor is lying. Is that what you are saying?

You deliberately are making misleading statements.

Look at the figures involved more closely. The DND has also calculated costs that are associated with the F-35, including DND personnel costs. Different set of costs with different set of assumptions made. You, much like everyone else so far, has not managed to grasp the concept that how one calculates costs and what type of assumptions and factors made, will drastically affect one's 'cost'. In order to truly understand costing, you need to have a total picture and understanding of how one reached that cost.

Looking at the cost breakdown, the figures for each line (except for where there is no figure) are SIMILAR. For example, the DND estimated in 2010 internally that the total capital costs for buying F-35's is $6 billion dollars. They reached and presented the same number in 2011.

The biggest difference is that the DND cost in 2010 includes things like Operating costs, Contingency, and National Defence personnel, while the 2011 Public cost didn't.

Both sets of costs are TRUE and CORRECT, but how one reached those costs are NOT THE SAME METHOD. In short, you are comparing apples to oranges. While they are both 'fruit', they are still totally different from each other in composition, etc.

Just this morning, I yelled at my costing analysts for making the same mistake you are making when they were buying raw materials. So I know what's going on in how one arrives at costs.

[Edited 2012-04-03 18:34:09]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 133, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4765 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 132):
Looking at the cost breakdown, the figures for each line (except for where there is no figure) are SIMILAR.

That is true. The lie is in the excluded figures.

2.68 Exhibit 2.6 illustrates two cost estimates developed by National Defence: the first was used for decision making in June 2010; the second was presented to Parliament in response to the March 2011 report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer




Of course both estimates are correct for what they reflect. I am not saying otherwise, nor did I. Let me put it another way. The estimate presented to Parliament was misrepresented as being something it wasn't. It was not the total F-35 costs over 20 years, yet Parliament was led to believe that is was.

[Edited 2012-04-03 18:49:36]

User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1693 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 4754 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 133):
That is true. The lie is in the excluded figures.

2.68 Exhibit 2.6 illustrates two cost estimates developed by National Defence: the first was used for decision making in June 2010; the second was presented to Parliament in response to the March 2011 report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer

However, both set of costs ARE correct. What's misleading (and you are guilty of this), and that you looked at the final total without understanding the entire picture. Even then, comparing to the PBO's costing estimates, you are comparing apples to oranges to banana's, and the devil lies in the details as to how one arrived at such costs.

In order to truly cost things out in a equivalent manner, one will have to develop a standardized costing formula where the exact same assumptions are made between the two costs. No one has done that yet, and that's why I don't take stock in the various 'costs' that are floating around until I've had a chance to closely examine the figures to see the methodology and assumptions made.


User currently offlineSAS A340 From Sweden, joined Jul 2000, 778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 135, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4709 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 127):
Norway is getting theirs for $75million per, so there is no reason why we can't get the same price.

Latest about Norway,s F-35 purchase......
The plan is to buy the 4 training aircraft in 2015, instead of 2016. That’s later than the originally-envisaged full buy of 48 from 2014-2018, but the F-35’s schedule has changed, too.

The rest of the buy would be stretched. Norway is considering 2017 as the start date for orders of the remaining 42, and the final procurement year could be as late as 2023-2024. That makes for an average buy of 5-6 planes per year, though Norway could also choose to buy fewer in early years and more in the later years, if that means lower prices. The final 6 operational aircraft would be a separate decision, after the main set of 4 training + 42 fighters had been ordered. That effectively turns them into a financial buffer, making them vulnerable to budget cuts or fighter cost increases.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...ntinued-dogfights-in-norway-03034/

Now,is there any details such this regarding Canadas purchase??

[Edited 2012-04-03 22:50:35]


It's not what u do,it's how u do it!
User currently offlineCentre From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 136, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4704 times:

This subject came up in the last election and the conservatives lied/hidden information from the public about the cost of the F-35.
If those figures were presented to the public their chances of wining would have been very slim.
Harper and his government should be thrown out of Ottawa.
disgusting indeed.



I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 6
Reply 137, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4694 times:

Definition - "Full Life-cycle Cost"
Sum of all recurring and one-time (non-recurring) costs over the full life span or a specified period of a good, service, structure, or system. In includes purchase price, installation cost, operating costs, maintenance and upgrade costs, and remaining (residual or salvage) value at the end of ownership or its useful life.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/de...life-cycle-cost.html#ixzz1r39aSVCM

Now from the report:

Full life-cycle costs were understated in the estimates provided to support the government’s 2010 decision to buy the F-35.

The definition of "Full Life-cycle Cost" includes the cost line items that the DND excluded. When they said their full life-cycle cost estimate was $14.7 Billion, that was a lie. Their own estimate for that was really $25 billion at that time.

It's very simple.Now you are saying, ah mamamia, it's all a misunderstanding? That's what criminals say when they're caught red handed.

[Edited 2012-04-03 23:35:52]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 138, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4639 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 129):
Awww, getting upset are we. Fact of the matter is, unless something drastic happens, like the US cancelling the program for good, the F35 will happen in Canada regardless of what the media or any non-conservative voter says or believes. That is the nice thing about a majority, the opposition can whine and complain, but can't do much besides that.

Actually, this doesn't even have to have any sense of logic (your way or mine) anymore, it has entered the realm of politics vs public opinion. Not sure which one the Tories value more.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...lex-to-never-retreat-or-apologize/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...es-by-fighter-jets/article2391501/

Quoting Centre (Reply 136):
This subject came up in the last election and the conservatives lied/hidden information from the public about the cost of the F-35.
If those figures were presented to the public their chances of wining would have been very slim.
Harper and his government should be thrown out of Ottawa.
disgusting indeed.

   Welcome to Canada, sir !

Remember: the only good Tory is a suppository.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 139, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4587 times:

Quoting Centre (Reply 136):
If those figures were presented to the public their chances of wining would have been very slim.

Incorrect. Fact is the public in Canada doesn't care about this issue, its only the media who like to blow things out of proportion. Those who seem to dislike all things Conservative seem to be the loudest and most vocal. It's like a crying child who didn't get what he/she wanted. They will make all sorts of noise and clatter but no one really cares what they have to say until they show some maturity. This is the pathetic situation of the opposition parties in Canada.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 138):
Actually, this doesn't even have to have any sense of logic (your way or mine) anymore, it has entered the realm of politics vs public opinion.

Perhaps. However IMO the general public has no right to say what we buy. They can complain about the price all they want since it's their money, what the DND does with this money is a whole different matter. The public doesn't care about what vehicles or guns the Army buys or what ships the Navy gets. Why is it that when it comes to fighter jets every joe blow thinks he knows what's best for the Air Force. The DND doesn't make decisions based on Ace Combat video game results, the public on the other hand seems to.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 140, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4568 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 139):
Perhaps. However IMO the general public has no right to say what we buy.

Actually, since we pay your salary and pay for everything you use, we do. There's an old saying "who pays the piper calls the tune". Get used to it.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 139):
Incorrect. Fact is the public in Canada doesn't care about this issue

Much more so than you realize in your bubble.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 139):
Those who seem to dislike all things Conservative seem to be the loudest and most vocal

Who represent the majority of Canadians. Don't forget Harp et al got elected with about 38% of the vote.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineCentre From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 141, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4520 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 139):
Incorrect. Fact is the public in Canada doesn't care about this issue, its only the media who like to blow things out of proportion. Those who seem to dislike all things Conservative seem to be the loudest and most vocal. It's like a crying child who didn't get what he/she wanted

And because of such attitude the conservatives feel they have a blank cheque to do whatever they want?
As a liberal, I see conservatism nothing but a disease that need to be dealt with 
Makes you wonder where does Jesus fall in the midst of all of these lies.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 139):
Perhaps. However IMO the general public has no right to say what we buy. They can complain about the price all they want since it's their money, what the DND does with this money is a whole different matter. The public doesn't care about what vehicles or guns the Army buys or what ships the Navy gets. Why is it that when it comes to fighter jets every joe blow thinks he knows what's best for the Air Force. The DND doesn't make decisions based on Ace Combat video game results, the public on the other hand seems to.

I give you this one, it was the fault of the public to put such incompetent government in the office... And whoever voted for them deserve such a treatment from those like you with the attitude that the government owns the people, and not the other way around.
It's just the pockets of everyone else that has to foot the bill.

The only reason Harper's government still surviving is because there is no unified opposition. They too need to get their act together and throw the Tories out of office once and for all.



I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 142, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4513 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 140):
Actually, since we pay your salary and pay for everything you use, we do. There's an old saying "who pays the piper calls the tune". Get used to it.

Nice try, but you don't get to decide what uniforms we wear or what type of equipment we need for specific missions. You are just there to provide the cash after we make our list of requirements. Get used to it. Whether or not we get that cash is another story, like with the F35 buy.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 140):
Much more so than you realize in your bubble.

Truth hurts doesn't it. You are quick to make personal attacks in your posts when proven wrong. It's a trend I see.



Quoting connies4ever (Reply 140):
Who represent the majority of Canadians. Don't forget Harp et al got elected with about 38% of the vote.

Unfortunately or political system isn't based on the majority vote. While maybe more people, individually, might have voted against the Conservatives, they still won based on our voting system. Get used to it. Unless the Liberals get their collective heads our of their asses, I can see a Conservative majority happening next election. The NDP are just....off in their own little world and have no clue how to run a country.

Quoting Centre (Reply 141):
As a liberal, I see conservatism nothing but a disease that need to be dealt with

Much like I see the United States in the world picture, but that is for another topic. Stay on this one. If you don't want to discuss the F35 purchase in Canada, run along.


User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 143, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4509 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 142):
Nice try, but you don't get to decide what uniforms we wear or what type of equipment we need for specific missions. You are just there to provide the cash after we make our list of requirements. Get used to it. Whether or not we get that cash is another story, like with the F35 buy.

Well, when you see the budget going forward, get used to it. Actually, I come from an Air Force family, father 3 uncles. My brother is Army. I am well connected to the DND world.

Actually, we do get to decide what uniforms you wear. Because we have the purse strings. Don't forget it. Whether green jeans in older days or the separate uni's today is a different argument.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 142):
Truth hurts doesn't it. You are quick to make personal attacks in your posts when proven wrong. It's a trend I see.

Oh, so sorry. Didn't know you were so sensitive. I'll try to pull some punches. But no promises.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 144, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4499 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 143):
Actually, we do get to decide what uniforms you wear. Because we have the purse strings.

I don't ever recall the DND asking the public whether or not we should choose the J model herc or wait for the A400M. Same thing for the C17, there was never a public opinion poll held. Civies may have approved the cash, but not the equipment. You can't seem to grasp the difference.

Back on topic. Measuring the total cost of the program is stupid at this stage. When you buy a car, do you also calculate the total cost of gas, maintenance, accident repairs, registration costs, insurance, etc? Your $30,000 mrsp car now costs you $50,000. Imagine that. If we added in maintenance and upgrade cost to every thing we have (house, car, boat, bike, etc) then yes the total cost over its expected life will always seem staggering. Nice propaganda trick that the uneducated public eats up like a fat guy in a buffet.

Here is a nice article from Dec that applies to this situation.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/f-22-real-cost/

Quote:
The 196th and final F-22 Raptor has rolled out of Lockheed Martin’s factory in Marietta, Georgia. That means yesterday marked an end to more than 14 years of production for what’s widely considered the most fearsome jet fighter in history. And also one of the costliest.

So what’s the cost? As little as $137 million per jet and as much as $678 million, depending on how and what you count. The thing is, the best way of calculating the F-22′s cost may be the most abstract. But any way you crunch the numbers, the world’s best dogfighter has also been one of the most expensive operational warplanes ever.

Over the years, the Raptor’s cost has been the subject of intense debate in the Pentagon, the White House, Congress and the media. But advocates and critics tend to quote different figures to serve their various agendas. Fans of the twin-engine fighter usually refer to the “flyaway cost” — that is, how much Lockheed charged the government to piece together each Raptor after all development has been paid for. In other words, just construction spending.

By that reckoning, each of the last 60 F-22s set the taxpayer back $137 million, only slightly more than the roughly $110 million apiece Americans pay for a new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — a plane specifically designed to be “affordable,” whatever that means. (All figures are in roughly constant dollars.)


Haters cite “unit cost,” which includes development and production spending divided by the number of jets built. F-22 production and development, including currently approved upgrades, totals $74 billion, resulting in a unit cost of $377 million.

And just because the last Raptor left the Marietta factory doesn’t mean the unit cost is fixed at $377 million. If the Air Force ever gets around to adding a long-planned-for datalink, the unit cost could increase slightly. Tweaks to prevent future groundings — like those that occurred this year — would also push the unit cost up.

By contrast, the F-35′s unit cost should stabilize at around $157 million, owing to a massive 2,443-plane production run. That’s assuming the Joint Strike Fighter doesn’t get canceled or curtailed following revelations of new design flaws.

There’s a third way to calculate the F-22′s burden on the taxpayer. “Lifecycle cost” adds up the price of fuel, spare parts and maintenance during the jet’s projected 40-year lifespan. The Government Accountability Office estimates it will cost $59 billion to fix and fly the F-22s until they retire. If you add unit cost and per-plane lifecycle cost, you get the total amount the United States spends to design, produce and operate a single Raptor: a whopping $678 million.

F-35 lifecycle plus unit cost, assuming nothing else goes wrong? $469 million, according to Air Force figures quoted by the GAO.

The fourth and final approach to calculating the Raptor’s price takes into account its effectiveness. It’s a trickier measurement. But it might be the best one to consider. It asks: How much value does the U.S. government get from its investment in F-22s?

While it’s undetectable in isolated flyaway, unit and lifecycle cost figures, value is inarguably important. A cheap used car that never leaves the driveway is, in a real sense, more expensive than a car you pay sticker price for and drive every day.

So consider this: since the F-22 entered service in 2005, every other operational warplane in the U.S. arsenal has seen action in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or other conflict zones. But the tiny fleet of pricey F-22s, optimized for ultra-rare dogfighting missions, missing key upgrades and frequently grounded, hasn’t flown a single combat sortie.

That should be the real source of buyer’s remorse.


In the end, calculating total cost of the entire program is ridiculous without knowing everything. I'd like you to find out how much the entire F-15 program cost, from first drawings to today. Make sure to include everything from fuel costs, to salaries for the support crew and coffee in the unit break room. Until we have a standardized method for calculating fighter programs, these and all the subsequent cost projections are asinine.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 145, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4423 times:

Quoting Centre (Reply 136):
This subject came up in the last election and the conservatives lied/hidden information from the public about the cost of the F-35.

According to the AG report, DND mislead the government.

Quoting Centre (Reply 136):
Harper and his government should be thrown out of Ottawa.

We'll decide the fate of the Harper government, thank you. Last time I checked, you have your own election to be concerned about.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 138):
Remember: the only good Tory is a suppository.

The cards are down, eh?  
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 128):
Basically it comes down to what you define your posture to be.

  

The F35 was never going to happen to begin with. Why? Because the chances of the current government sticking around until 2021 are very slim. Then the Maritime Helicopter Project would repeat itself all over again. The only difference here is that the F-35 plan is dead now, instead of a few years down the road There will be no order coming from a government that's in damage control. The sad part about all of this is that they've thrown the CAF completely under the bus, instead of cleaning house at DND, to save their own asses. Since the average Canadian's view on foreign policy and the military hasn't changed since Trudeau was PM, the CAF is going to be "public enemy #1" again. Until the Canadian public comes to the realization that we require more than a token force, which will be too late at that point, nobody will be willing to spend more than what we did between unification and 9/11. No F-35, and if we're lucky we might get the CF-18's replaced by 2020.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 146, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4361 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 144):
I don't ever recall the DND asking the public whether or not we should choose the J model herc or wait for the A400M. Same thing for the C17, there was never a public opinion poll held. Civies may have approved the cash, but not the equipment. You can't seem to grasp the difference.

Going to Parliament with an RFA IS "consulting the public". In case you hadn't noticed.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 144):
Back on topic. Measuring the total cost of the program is stupid at this stage. When you buy a car, do you also calculate the total cost of gas, maintenance, accident repairs, registration costs, insurance, etc? Your $30,000 mrsp car now costs you $50,000.

Actually, going through the mental exercise right now about a new vehicle. Do I lay out the cash or not ? The life cycle costs represent a lot of taxi rides. I know you are so shocked that a cwivilian can think in such an advanced manner.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4310 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 122):
A scenario that will never occur.

Until China starts selling them to Pakistan, Iran, and any other country what would like a low cost stealth option. What will the Canadian public be saying when the RCAF is senting out dated jets against stealth fighters and the DND says they are simply out classed and it is too dangerous to go into those areas?


The order for the F-35 is not for right now, it is for the future. You dont know what is going happen in 15-20 years. It wouldnt take much for a second cold war to flair up with China.

You know that if the DND does not get thier 65 F-35s, it will be 65 of something inferior, we will not get an increased number. Anything less than the F-35 will be a further decrease in RCAF operational capacity.


User currently offlineCentre From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 148, posted (2 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4302 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 145):
According to the AG report, DND mislead the government.

Isn't DND part of the government?
So it's either the government is lying or the government is incompetent and has no idea what's going on in its backyard

Quoting TheCol (Reply 145):
We'll decide the fate of the Harper government, thank you. Last time I checked, you have your own election to be concerned about.

As a dual citizen, I'm as much Canadian as you are, and have been voting while you were still training on how to kick a ball.
And has been paying taxes through personal and business for almost 2 decades.
This is our money, our hard working money, and it's been abused with no accountability, running the country as if they are running a farm, even a farmer will do a much better job.



I have cut 4 times, and it's still short.