Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter Jets - F35

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 03:20
by pushoksti
Ottawa is moving on a sole-sourced purchase of high-tech U.S. fighter jets to replace its CF-18s despite furious last-minute lobbying by rival manufacturers.

Industry and government sources said the cabinet is expected in coming days to approve the launch of negotiations on price and delivery schedules with Lockheed-Martin, the U.S.-based manufacturer of the Joint Strike Fighter F-35.

The government is moving early on buying 65 new aircraft in a bid to “lock up the price” long before the jets start entering into service in 2017, sources said.

The contract worth up to $9-billion would be awarded without competition, with the Harper government set to argue the only other aircraft that could eventually meet the needs of the Canadian Forces would be built in China or Russia, and that such a purchase “wouldn’t fly” in Canada.

But that hasn’t stopped the manufacturers of jets such as Boeing’s Super Hornet from trying to whip up a storm in Parliament and the defence community.

Lobbyists have been contacting journalists and parliamentarians in an attempt to put out the story that Canada could get new aircraft at a cheaper price, and with more Canadian content, by opening up tenders.

“An open competition to select Canada's next-generation fighter would enable Canada's government and military to obtain access to detailed Super Hornet performance data, enabling a thorough and accurate evaluation of its advanced, proven capabilities,” said Boeing spokeswoman Mary Brett in a statement.

Officially, Defence Minister Peter MacKay responded to the speculation in the House on Monday by promising that his government is set to “invest in the next generation of fighters.”

“Stay tuned,” Mr. MacKay said in response to NDP attacks against a sole-sourced contract.

Privately, government officials are saying Ottawa already made a decision in the 2008 “Canada First” defence policy to buy a next-generation fighter plane, and that Boeing lost the competition in the United States to build that aircraft in 2001.

“Boeing has been driving the town crazy,” said a senior government official directly involved in the project. “This is a classic firestorm in Ottawa, with lobbyists stirring up the town trying to stall the acquisition of equipment for the Canadian Forces.”

The Joint Strike Fighter is being developed by Lockheed-Martin, which won a competition to produce the next generation of stealth single-seat aircraft. Canada has invested $160-million so far in the development project, which will cost hundreds of billions of dollars. The U.S. Forces will buy about 2,400 of the F-35s.

The 65 new fighters that the Canadian government plans to buy will replace its current fleet of 80 CF-18s starting in 2017.

Competing aircraft manufacturers say that despite the federal investment, the Joint Strike Fighter might not be the way to go. The overarching theme among manufacturers is that they want to be able to participate in a competition, and that the government will get a better deal – and more regional industrial benefits spread out across Canada – if it opens up a tendering process.

“Competition guarantees the best value for Canada,” Boeing stated in a presentation to Conservative ministers last fall.

Boeing is insisting in its material that it will continue to produce its Super Hornet into the next decade, and that the U.S. Forces will continue to have more than twice as many of these planes than the Lockheed F-35s.

But Mr. MacKay signaled in the House of Commons on May 27 that his mind is made up. He initially spoke of the Joint Strike Fighter as the designated replacement for the CF-18s, before stating that a decision has yet to be made.

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1595525/

Whether or not this will go through, it is good news since the CF-18's are on their last legs.

RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter Jets - F

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 03:39
by popcorn
So Canada is going the same route Australia did.. I think its a pretty safe bet for them and really saves on a lot of time and energy foregoing a bidding.

RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter Jets - F

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 05:10
by munny
Oh, happy, happy day! There are few things better in business than having customers buy a full order of the product sight unseen. Weee.....woohoo!

Scoreboard 79 - 1.

Ouch! :cheers:

RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter Jets - F

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 13:53
by darkvarkguy
Will they be CF-35s? :)

RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter Jets - F

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 14:52
by lampshade111
To be honest I thought the Canadians would eventually go with the Super Hornet, but this is good news for the F-35 program. Shame they aren't replacing the CF-18 on a 1-1 ratio however.

RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter Jets - F

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 16:47
by famine
We are spending more each week on Mtce of the jets; that we could probably buy a 1 to 1 replacement with the money spent.

RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter Jets - F

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 18:04
by johnwill
They are being replaced at more than 1 to 1 in terms of capability. Sixty five F-35s are easily more capable then 80 F/A-18

Re: RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter Jets

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 18:14
by pushoksti
johnwill wrote:They are being replaced at more than 1 to 1 in terms of capability. Sixty five F-35s are easily more capable then 80 F/A-18


We have a few that are set to retire. So that 80 number will be more like 70 by the end of 2011.

Re: RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter Jets

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 18:44
by lampshade111
darkvarkguy wrote:Will they be CF-35s? :)


I presume they will be and feature some modifications. After all they still need to meet the usual Canadian requirements for beer and bacon carrying capacity, plus a tailhook designed to catch moose.

RE: Re: RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 19:51
by spazsinbad
OLD NEWS but relevant?

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROBLEMS HAVE NO IMPACT AT ALL ON CANADA'S CF-18 REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, DND CLAIMS
By Dave Pugliese Sat, Apr 3 2010

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacit ... laims.aspx

"What effect will some of the ongoing issues/problems regarding the Joint Strike Fighter program have on Canada’s plans to find a replacement for the CF-18?

That was one of the questions I asked the Defence Department for a special report that Defense News was putting together.

Unfortunately I couldn’t use the information DND provided as it was more than a week beyond my deadline (the article was printed by the time they responded).

But I found the response very interesting. Mike Slack and those associated with the Next Generation Fighter aircraft office refused to do interviews (they have refused to speak to journalists for sometime now).

But DND spokesperson Jocelyn Sweet, reading from prepared media response lines provided to her by the Next Generation Fighter office, stated this about the issues coming out of the U.S.:
“The recent delays and associated costs have no impact on Canada’s commitment to or participation in the Joint Strike Fighter program and they do not adversely affect Canada’s next generation fighter capability project,” Ms. Sweet noted.

JSF is indeed a candidate for Canada’s Next Generation Fighter. That fighter will be eventually selected on a number of issues, including price, capabilities, delivery time and industrial benefits for Canadian industry.

Now in the U.S. a number of things are happening with JSF.

--The Pentagon has launched a top-to-bottom review of the JSF in regard to the cost to operate and maintain the high-tech plane over the course of its life. That follows a leaked U.S. Navy report that noted that the JSF will cost considerably more to fly and maintain that the current fleet of fighter aircraft operated by the Navy.

--The JSF program which was to produce an aircraft that cost an average of $50.2 million U.S. per plane now has a pricetag between $80 million and $95 million in 2002 dollars, Defense News has reported. This figure comes from Christine Fox, director of the U.S. Defense Department’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office. She testified in a March 11 hearing on Capitol Hill.

--On March 11, the Senate Armed Services committee heard that initial operating capability dates for the U.S. Air Force and Navy for the JSF, also known as the F-35, have been delayed to 2016.

So the cost of JSF has almost doubled and there are indications that the cost of maintenance and operations of the aircraft is significantly more than existing aircraft.

Yet none of this, according to the Next Generation Fighter aircraft office, has an iota of impact on Canada’s plans to replace the CF-18.

Like I said, an interesting viewpoint."

RE: Re: RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2010, 22:04
by Prinz_Eugn
CF-335's?

RE: Re: RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Fighter

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2010, 05:45
by geogen
Minor detail, but first delivery expected in 2017? So would the first buy year be planned now for FY15, compared to FY14? But have to hand it to the office guys, who can apparently lock in an estimated price today, for a block V order in 2018, 2019? Respects to CF-18 drivers in the meanwhile and for policing Alaskan airspace if/when the F-15Cs are grounded.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US Figh

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 01:19
by pushoksti
geogen wrote:But have to hand it to the office guys, who can apparently lock in an estimated price today, for a block V order in 2018, 2019?


Its an exchange for a bulk supply of beaver pelts.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Canada set to spend $9-billion on 65 US

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 14:15
by spazsinbad
Cost of new fighter jets could soar by billions with maintenance costs By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press 8/06/2010

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada ... 03119.html

"OTTAWA - The federal cabinet is expected to debate the multibillion-dollar purchase of new jetfighters Wednesday, but the long-term cost of the Joint Strike Fighter will be a moving target.

U.S. defence giant Lockheed-Martin is eager to sign a sole-source contract with Ottawa to sell as many as 65 of the advanced stealth fighters, but a deal on long-term service would be extra — and could cost billions more.

Traditionally, when the federal government buys a big-ticket piece of equipment for the military, it calculates the purchase price and has the cost of the long-term support package nailed down up front. It is one of the few western countries to handle military procurement that way.

But Defence bureaucrats are only able to ballpark the overall project costs, with estimates varying between $9 billion and $10 billion, depending upon who you talk with in government and the defence industry. And whenever the Conservatives decide to announce the deal for the F-35 Lightning II, they'll only be able to guess at what the maintenance portion of the bill will be.

Lockheed officials said Tuesday that the anticipated delivery date of 2017 for the first aircraft — replacements for the nearly 30-year-old CF-18s — means there is plenty of time to work out support arrangements.

"Those discussions are ongoing," said Steve O'Brien, Lockheed's vice-president of F-35 business development. "We don't expect this to be painful or take a lot of time."

There are 18 of the advanced stealth fighter in various stages of testing and qualification in the U.S., while the first 63 production models are being assembled for customers who've already signed deals. It's unclear how much maintenance the aircraft will need, but O'Brien said as data and costs are assembled they will be shared with Canada as the program moves forward.

The Defence Department got into a similar situation with Lockheed Martin when it agreed two years ago to the sole-source purchase of 17 C-130J Super Hercules cargo planes. The deal was inked without a firm in-service support contract and federal officials reportedly went through the roof when the aircraft-maker presented a proposal much higher than budgeted.

In the end, Ottawa settled for an $723-million maintenance package that covers the first seven years of the cargo plane's life — the period of time critics say is the least expensive for repairs and spare parts.

There has been a lot of heated debate in Washington about the F-35, particularly after the Pentagon last week released an estimate that suggested the each aircraft would cost about US$94 million, a figure that rolls in both the purchase price, long-term maintenance and adjustments for inflation. That's a 64 per cent increase from the initial estimate.

Despite the staggering increase, the U.S. military stand behind the project, which is intended to deliver 2,457 jetfighters to the Americans. Other countries, such as the Netherlands have also winced at the cost and there have been motions put before the caretaker government calling for Dutch participation to be either scrapped or drastically curtailed.

The Australians also balked at the price as far back as 2006, when their projected cost jumped from $10.5 billion to $15 billion for 100 aircraft. An Australian parliamentary report warned the government of the day that it was making a mistake signing on so early in the project development when "the eventual cost of the aircraft and whether it represented value for money" were still unknown.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay insisted in the House of Commons on Tuesday that no decision had been made, a statement that was echoed in just about every quarter of National Defence headquarters.

"What this government will commit to is to get the best possible equipment at the best possible price," he said.

Despite the denials, it's clear the air force has had its heart set on the F-35. An options analysis completed for the chief of air staff in 2006 said that the Joint Strike Fighter "family of aircraft provides the best available operational capabilities to meet Canadian operational requirements, while providing the longest service life and the lowest cost per aircraft."

Ottawa has already invested $160 million in the development of the stealth fighter and Canadian aircraft parts makers are already in the queue to provide components to Lockheed's entire fleet of 3,100. O'Brien estimated Canadian companies have already secured $275 million in work in the building phase and more would follow "on a competitive basis" for maintenance."

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2010, 20:43
by architect
Why not just to buy 24 F-35 and 60 Super Hornets, Silent Eagles or even the latest F-16 with reliable engines, very good capabilities and great range?
We can use the F-35 to suppress radars, communications centers or airplanes in the ground. The other airplanes could be used to patrol missions or day 2 of war, and even to air superiority. Russian Pakfa is far from be a real threat.
I love Eurocanards, but in the long term, there will be problems with upgrades and spares.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2010, 04:21
by pushoksti
architect wrote:Why not just to buy 24 F-35 and 60 Super Hornets, Silent Eagles or even the latest F-16 with reliable engines, very good capabilities and great range?
We can use the F-35 to suppress radars, communications centers or airplanes in the ground. The other airplanes could be used to patrol missions or day 2 of war, and even to air superiority. Russian Pakfa is far from be a real threat.
I love Eurocanards, but in the long term, there will be problems with upgrades and spares.


We can't afford 2 different fighter airframes. It may seem more logical on paper to have different frames for different roles, but it's not that easy.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2010, 05:27
by geogen
If you can afford a full AF complement of F-35s, you can afford a Hi-lo logistical mix of 3 part supplemental 4.5 and 1 part 5th gen. The savings in procurement can go to logistical Life Cycle costs and more timely upgrades. My views.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jun 2010, 22:58
by spazsinbad
Daniel Leblanc
Harper bending to U.S. on sole-source fighter purchase, documents reveal Ottawa — From Friday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, Jun. 11, 2010 3:00AM EDT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1600070/

"The Harper government is refusing to open up the $16-billion purchase of 65 new fighter jets to a competition because of the potential negative reaction in the United States and other allied countries, internal documents show.

The purchase of F-35 Lightning II fighter jets is one of the biggest military projects in Canadian history, almost equal in size to the entire 2006 plan to acquire more than 2,000 trucks, 21 transport planes, 16 heavy helicopters and three ships for the Canadian Forces.

The fighter contract is the subject of a heated lobbying campaign in Ottawa, as rival companies try to force the government to open up the purchase to a tendering process instead of giving it out sole-sourced to Lockheed-Martin.

The controversy is expected to grow as new federal documents show that the total value of the program comes to $16-billion once 20 years of maintenance are factored in, up from the $9-billion cost for the planes that came out earlier this week.

According to secret cabinet documents obtained by The Globe and Mail, officials are well aware that any move to open up the process to a competition could push the manufacturers of rival jets, such as the Boeing Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon, to lower their prices.

In addition, the government is expecting a “negative reaction” to the fact that the contract is set to be awarded without a competition.

But as the process is going through a series of cabinet committees, federal documents show that ministers are being urged to go along with an existing memorandum of understanding with U.S.-based manufacturer Lockheed-Martin.

One of the government’s major arguments is that a competition could hurt Canada’s reputation among the other countries that have been involved in Lockheed-Martin’s massive Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program since the 1990s.

The U.S. military is planning to buy more than 2,000 jets, and other countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom are also involved in the project. If Canada does not buy F-35s, officials say, it will be straying from the path followed by its “major allies” well into the middle of the century.

“Competitive process would send signal to US/partners that we are not fully committed to JSF,” stated the Canadian government, which has been involved since 1997.

The government added that the F-35 is deemed to be the only aircraft to meet Ottawa’s requirements, as spelled out in the 2008 “Canada First” defence policy. The F-35 would be the first jet in the Canadian Forces with radar-evading stealth capabilities, with the 65 new fighters replacing the current fleet of 80 CF-18s starting in 2017.

Finally, the government has obtained assurances that its position on a sole-sourced contract cannot be legally challenged by rival manufacturers.

“Public Works legal opinion confirms suitability of invoking an exemption in Government Contracting Regulations because only one aircraft meets the [Canadian Forces’] operational requirements,” a federal document states.

A number of senior government officials are staunch supporters of the F-35, given that Lockheed-Martin won the contract in the United States in 2001 to develop the so-called “fifth generation” of fighter jets, beating out a rival bid from Boeing.

In that context, officials said, the potential bids from Boeing and Eurofighter would be based on inferior “fourth generation” aircraft.

Canada has invested $160-million so far in the project, with Canadian firms receiving $350-million in contracts.

“Canada must commit to the JSF program to realize benefits,” the government said, pointing to a potential for $12-billion in future work.

But competing aircraft manufacturers say they want to participate in a competition, and that the government will get a better deal – and more regional industrial benefits spread out across Canada – if it opens up a tendering process.

“Competition guarantees the best value for Canada,” Boeing stated in a presentation to Conservative ministers last fall.

Officials at National Defence and Public Works refused Thursday to discuss the complete price tag for the new fighter jets, saying it “would be premature to discuss the details of a procurement, including cost figures and timelines.”

However, documents show that the cost of the acquisition is $8.99-billion, “along with sustainment services for 20 years valued at $6.93-billion.” In addition, the government is predicting that the operating costs to fly the stealth fighters over two decades will reach $9.6-billion.

According to the Canadian government, the funding for the new F-35 jets is already budgeted, and will end up costing only $890-million between now and 2014-15, with the rest of the acquisition cost of $8-billion to be paid in subsequent years."

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2010, 00:24
by stereospace
architect wrote:Why not just to buy 24 F-35 and 60 Super Hornets, Silent Eagles or even the latest F-16 with reliable engines, very good capabilities and great range?

That's not a bad plan, a hi-lo mix. However, maintaining multiple aircraft types has high long term costs: different engines, training, avionics, spares, etc.

Gulf War I showed that stealth was a game changing technology. If you're going to invest in a single new combat aircraft do you invest in the last gen, or the next gen? And in twenty years the F-16 will be as obsolete as a P-51 Mustang in 1960.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2010, 02:17
by geogen
Maybe a mix of block III Supers with NG Gripens? Similar enough logistics? Supers can act as NGJ jamming platforms (or at least Growler-lites) for Gripens, as well as buddy tankers in any hypothetical future scenario need be, as part of the strategic contingency planning?

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2010, 04:28
by Prinz_Eugn
geogen wrote:Maybe a mix of block III Supers with NG Gripens? Similar enough logistics? Supers can act as NGJ jamming platforms (or at least Growler-lites) for Gripens, as well as buddy tankers in any hypothetical future scenario need be, as part of the strategic contingency planning?


Interesting point, but I don't think that would be enough to make it much easier. S-3's and A-10's used the same engine, but I don't imagine that would have helped...

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2010, 14:15
by outlaw162
And in twenty years the F-16 will be as obsolete as a P-51 Mustang in 1960.


El Salvador/Honduras "Soccer War", 1969, P-51's versus F4U's.

:shock:

OL

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2010, 13:31
by LinkF16SimDude
CF-35 mockup from airliners.net (photo by Alain Rioux) if anyone's interested:

Image

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2010, 23:24
by spazsinbad
Joint Strike Fighter costs are soaring - The F-35 project is plagued by cost overruns. But Ottawa says it’s insulated from sticker shock. by John Geddes on Wednesday, October 13, 2010

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/13/cost ... aring-too/

"The suspension of test flights of Lockheed Martin’s new F-35 fighter jet early this month sounded like bad news for Canada. The federal government announced its plan last spring to buy 65 of the so-called Joint Strike Fighters, giving Ottawa a multi-billion-dollar vested interest in seeing the radar-evading airplane cruise smoothly to market. Yet the discovery of a fuel pump software problem—just the latest setback in the troubled F-35 program—apparently can’t translate into a price bump for Canada. “The Americans basically have been covering the cost overruns in the system design and development phase themselves,” Michael Slack, the Department of National Defence’s manager for the F-35 project, told Maclean’s.

The notion that Ottawa is in a position to shrug as Washington sweats over F-35 costs is arguably the most unexpected aspect of this controversial military procurement deal. The U.S. government has seen the projected cost of each F-35 it plans to buy soar from $50 million a few years ago to at least $92 million this fall, and well above $100 million by some recent estimates. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been aggressively managing the file lately in a bid to counter negative publicity. By contrast, his Canadian counterpart, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, has been sanguine throughout it all, saying Canada will pay a comparative bargain price of about $70 million per jet.

That deal sounds almost too good to be true. Yet Slack vows that’s the way it is. The dollar figure that ultimately matters to Canada, he says, is something called the “average unit flyaway cost.” As he explains it, that’s the narrowly calculated cost of manufacturing each F-35 in the years 2016 to 2022, when Canada negotiated for its 65 jets to be delivered. The price Canada has agreed to pay won’t include any of the pre-production costs now mounting. “The system design and development phase costs have mushroomed,” Slack says. “But the only thing that’s relevant to Canada is the average unit flyaway cost.”

The most up-to-date estimate of that manufacturing cost for a single F-35 is between $70 million and $75 million, according to the U.S. government. “The U.S. does a fairly good job of estimating what the unit costs are going to be,” Slack says. “What they don’t do a good job of is estimating the cost of research and development, and testing and evaluation, which is a tricky business when you’re dealing with sophisticated military equipment.”

Critics of the F-35 purchase question how the Conservative government can really be so sure there won’t be any sticker shock. “There’s no contract, so I don’t know how they can say that’s the price we’re going to get,” says Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute, a Ottawa-based research group whose analysis of government programs is often used by unions such as the Canadian Auto Workers. Like the opposition parties, Staples contends the government should have put the contract for new fighter jets out for competitive bids to ensure the lowest price, rather than taking the unusual step of sole-sourcing the purchase of Lockheed Martin’s fighter.

But Slack says the F-35 arrangement is solid and offers unique advantages. In 2002, Canada signed on to the Joint Strike Fighter partnership with the U.S., Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Denmark and Norway. By putting up $150 million at the outset, Canada essentially bought the right not to bear the burden of any future development costs. In the fall of 2012, Canada must, along with the other partners, put in a firm order for jets to be delivered in 2016. The final price to be paid to Lockheed Martin will be negotiated by a U.S.-led project office for the partner countries. One key variable is the number of jets sold—fewer than expected would raise the cost of each airplane, more sales would lower it.

Slack says the very real possibility of some partners deciding to buy fewer F-35s than originally planned is offset by the prospect of new customers placing orders. Of course, projecting demand for high-end defence hardware years in advance is tricky. It’s a safer bet that bringing that hardware to market will cost more than promised. In the unsual case of the F-35, though, that appears not to be Canada’s worry."

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2010, 19:25
by spazsinbad
Another photo of Mockup 'CF-35A' with Canadian Maple Leaf Tail:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lukeoldham/5015792851/

Purchase of F-35 fighter jets a bad idea, says policy centre

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2010, 21:33
by stereospace
A report released by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says the multibillion-dollar purchase isn’t based on the country’s real needs. Liberal MPs agreed, saying they will kill the deal if they get the opportunity.

“The main point is that we have time and we need to change the way we think about our aircraft,” he said. “We don’t need them for bombing missions and there is no real Russian bomber threat.” He suggested Canada abandon the idea of using air power overseas and extend the life of the existing F-18 fleet for North American surveillance.


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... icy-centre

RE: Purchase of F-35 fighter jets a bad idea, says policy ce

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2010, 22:25
by spazsinbad
Interesting RETORT to ill-informed 'Canuckian Public' about F-35 choice. The canard about single-engine v double engine has been touted for so long I thought it was true. Go figure. :twisted:

F-35 jets right choice for Canada Published On Tue Aug 17 by Paul Manson & Angus Watt

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... cle/848664

"The announcement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to replace the CF-18 has sparked a flurry of debate, some of it ill-informed. The most common misconceptions are listed below, together with our own response to these.

We don’t need a fighter aircraft. Canada has national interests to protect, and international responsibilities to fulfill. This will not change. The military remains a key instrument of national power, providing a clear demonstration that we take our obligations seriously, whether these involve protection of our sovereignty, peacekeeping operations, fighting terrorism and, yes, fighting a war if necessary. We need to equip our military properly to meet whatever challenges might arise in an uncertain and unpredictable future. The F-35 will serve until at least 2050, and probably beyond. Over that time, Canada will need an air force that can reasonably handle whatever risks and threats may appear. Like fire insurance for your house, you can’t buy it after the fact.

The F-35 has only one engine. Contrary to popular opinion, the CF-18 was not chosen because it had two engines. Even 30 years ago engine reliability was so good that this was not a significant factor in the selection of our current fighter. Since then, jet engine technology has evolved so much that a single-engine fighter is a viable choice for Canada.

We don’t need to replace the CF-18 until at least 2017. Why choose now? The 28-year-old CF-18 has recently been updated and will serve capably until 2017, beyond which serious structural problems will arise. A major aircraft purchase usually requires at least five years to complete; the F-35 contract, therefore, needs to be signed by 2012. It is not premature to start the process now.

The F-35 is too expensive. It is true that the F-35 represents a large defence investment. However, there are significant cost advantages due to the large customer base; at least 3,000 will be sold to a variety of countries. This mass production will reduce Canada’s cost, as will the sharing of the ongoing support costs among the partner nations. Moreover, purchasing aircraft as part of a large group of nations assures interoperability, an important military consideration. Our aerospace industries will also have the potential to compete for worldwide contracts to support this large fleet, providing thousands of high-tech jobs for many years. The return on Canada’s investment will be very impressive indeed.

Canada could get a better deal through open competition. In theory, an open competition might produce a cheaper contract. The reality is different in this particular case. Mergers of large aircraft companies and the huge start-up investments required to produce a modern fighter severely limit the choices. If there existed another fifth generation fighter with comparable capabilities and costs, within another broad international customer group, perhaps a valid competition could be run. Unfortunately, other potential candidates are fourth generation fighters nearing the end of their operational relevance or small-batch fifth generation aircraft having reduced capabilities. The F-35 manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, has been forced to ruthlessly control both production and support costs to satisfy its F-35 customers, many of whom would cancel their orders should the price become excessive. Furthermore, with so many international customers, F-35 pricing visibility will be very high indeed, assuring a fair price for Canada.

We firmly believe that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter represents the best choice for Canada. The government’s announcement should have included more of the rigorous expert analysis that went into its decision. Ultimately, as with the once-controversial CF-18 selection, Canadians will come to understand the correctness of the decision, and its importance for the future security of our nation.

Retired general Paul Manson is a former Chief of the Defence Staff. Earlier in his military career he was program manager for the CF-18 Acquisition. Retired lieutenant-general Angus Watt is a former Chief of the Air Staff and Commander of Canada’s Air Force who retired in 2009."

RE: Purchase of F-35 fighter jets a bad idea, says policy ce

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2010, 05:31
by slicktry
Unfortunately, the opposition parties will takes jabs at the government for almost anything, and the F-35 contract is no exception. The public hasn't been properly "prepped" and the opposing political parties are screaming mad just to draw attention to themselves. I would LOVE to go on national TV with some of the gov't. critics and see how much research they've done.

What was Canada supposed to do? Gripens, Rafales, MIG's? Um....no.

God Bless
Jer

RE: Purchase of F-35 fighter jets a bad idea, says policy ce

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2010, 03:01
by spazsinbad
Did not realise that F-35 spare parts will be pooled world-wide. I guess the Logistics System takes care of a lot of hassle. Anyway here is more Canuck Sniping:

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada ... 71253.html

The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION Posted: 20/10/2010
Critics raises alarm about future 'unknowns' in stealth fighter maintenance By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press

"OTTAWA - A potentially costly wrinkle has emerged in the Conservative government's plan to spend up to $16 billion on new stealth fighters.

Less than half of the eye-popping price tag — $7 billion — is set aside for support and maintenance of the highly complex F-35 Lightning II. And senior defence officials intend to roll that cost into the eventual purchase agreement instead of negotiating two separate contracts.

Defence experts warn it is a huge financial gamble, one that could lead to soaring costs — or force Ottawa to accept lesser service down the road.

The problem is that the new aircraft has no maintenance track record.

The federal government in the past separated actual purchase costs from support arrangements, and negotiated distinct contracts. But a senior defence official tells The Canadian Press the F-35 will be different.

"There will never be a (support) contract," said the official, who is allowed to speak only on background.

"It's under the (memorandum of understanding). All your support is under the (memorandum of understanding)."

Defence insiders say they believe they have enough to data to reliably predict the level of support the fighters will need.

"We have very detailed information and plans on the predictable pieces that would go in to a support, but we don't know the price of fuel that date, or the price of titanium or aluminum in 2025," said the source. "So, there's no specific dollar figure."

But critics such as Alan Williams, the Defence Department's former assistant deputy minister of material, are alarmed and wonder who will eat the inevitable cost overruns on an aircraft that will no doubt have its teething pains.

Williams said that if history is any guide, it won't be U.S. giant Lockheed Martin.

The last time Ottawa signed a sole-sourced deal with the company, the world's largest defence contractor, it waited to negotiate the support element for the C-130J Hercules — and was floored by the cost estimate. When the deal was finally inked, the air force had to settle for a seven-year maintenance program, not the usual 20 years.

Rolling everything in to one contract for the F-35 ups the pressure on negotiators and has disaster written all over it, said Williams.

"I don't think we ought to trust behind-the-scenes estimates and evaluations, all done under the table (and) not in the public eye before we spend $16 billion of our money," said Williams, who has demanded the government hold an open competition.

"How could you buy something with so many unknowns?"

Federal officials point out the actual contract won't be signed until 2014 and by that time Lockheed Martin will have more planes flying than the existing 19 test aircraft — fighters that will give them valuable maintenance data.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris demanded to know how the government will ensure that long-term costs don't explode. He said combining the two arrangements takes away Ottawa's negotiating leverage to get the best price.

He said the defence contractor may give up a little on the $75 million-per-plane price tag, but could easily make it up by padding maintenance estimates.

"It bothers me a lot because, you know, we're subject to whatever goes on inside Lockheed Martin and we've got no control over that," he said.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay last month told the House of Commons defence committee that the air force expected to spend $250 million a year — or about $5 billion over 20 years — on the maintenance deal. That's lower than some of the federal government's initial projections, and is what the air force currently spends to keep the existing fleet of CF-18s in the air.

Officials within the department say they expect to achieve savings because the stealth fighters' support arrangement will see all countries pool spare parts.

"We hope it is more efficient because you can leverage the global supply chain of 3,000 fighters in nine countries," said the official.

"Instead of (us) having to buy 10 sets of extra sets of spare landing gear, (we) can have one set and the global pool has nine and (we) get when (we) need it, but if (we) never need it (we) don't actually have to buy it."

Williams said when Ottawa signed to buy new helicopters for the navy, in 2004, it knew "to the penny" how much long-term maintenance would cost.

"Today when you're buying any piece of equipment, you're buying software," he said.

"In this particular jet, it's very sophisticated and that is very expensive to maintain. And all I'm saying is the taxpayer ought to know what he's in for before we commit to something."

RE: Purchase of F-35 fighter jets a bad idea, says policy ce

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2010, 23:30
by spazsinbad
Talking F-35s with a former head of the air force by John Geddes on Friday, October 29, 2010

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/29/talk ... air-force/

"Lieutenant-General Angus Watt retired about a year ago as chief of air staff in the Canadian Forces. That gives him a particular vantage point on the government’s plan to spend about $16 billion to buy and maintain 65 F-35 fighter jets—close enough to know the details, but a bit detached from the ferocious debate that’s erupted over the sole-sourced procurement.

Not surprisingly, Watt is a big fan of the Lockheed Martin jet, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. He’s a sharp critic, though, of the job the federal government is doing selling the deal to the Canadian public. This is an edited version of his conversation with me earlier this week about the controversial F-35 project.

Q. Do you think the F-35 arrangement as it now stands makes sense for Canada?

A. I do. It’s the best of all the available choices. It provides the best value for money, the best platform to address the security needs of Canada through to 2050, which is probably how long we’ll have this airplane.

Q. I’ll come back to why you think it’s the best jet. But you mention best value for money. We usually make sure of that by holding a competitive bidding process. Why not do so in this case?

A. That’s a good question. I’m not personally opposed to a competition. But the circumstances of a competition would be difficult to manage. There aren’t a lot of competitors, apart from the F-35. In fact, it’s questionable if there are any.

Q. So if we had a proper competitive process, wouldn’t the F-35 be the clear front-runner or even the only bidder?

A. What happens then, and I’ve seen this before in other aircraft programs, is when the government specifies [its requirements] and it turns out that only one aircraft is even close to meeting them, then the other, lesser competitors will start to attack the specifications. Rather than competing the aircraft, they compete the specifications. Then we end up in a big debate about whether we need fifth-generation technology, sensors, all that sort of equipment, rather than competing on the basis of the available aircraft.

Q. For which aircraft purchase has disputing the specs become the issue?

A. Fixed-wing search and rescue. It has paralyzed the department.

Q. But how can we know that all those specifications the F-35 apparently meets—the attributes of a so-called fifth-generation fighter—are really what Canada needs?

A. The Department of National Defence, I know, did a very extensive analysis—not a true competition, I understand—of all the available platforms. It clearly showed the F-35 was head and shoulders above all the other ones. If they wanted to run a competition, fine. But I’m worried about that matter of attacking the specifications.

Q. On the need for a new fighter jet, some critics have pointed to the government’s emphasis on patroling the Arctic as an outmoded Cold War preoccupation. Isn’t the threat of Russian bombers long past?

A. One of the problems is that the government has not had a very good communications strategy here. They essentially went out with the announcement, with very few details, and asked everybody to accept it. I personally have seen the work that underpins the project and I know they have a very good outline of what capabilities are needed. There is enough of a package to show the Canadian people what the needs of Canadian security are for the next 30 or 40 years.

Q. And what are those needs?

A. It’s not just the NORAD need of chasing aging Soviet bombers in the Arctic. That’s a very narrow view. Canada’s interests are global. Our prosperity and security come from our engagement around the world. You can’t just draw a line around North America and say, ‘We’re not going to participate in any security operations outside those borders, but we’re certainly going to take economic advantage of that security in order to gain prosperity for our nation.’

So [without new fighter jets] when NATO decides to intervene—like they did in Kosovo the late nineties, and did a bombing campaign with our F-18s participating—we would not be able to participate. To me that undermines our credibility and our influence. Other nations, our allies and our potential foes, notice. Participating in an alliance of like-minded nations under the rubric of UN or NATO is very much in our security interests.

Q. And exactly how does the F-35 fit into that sort of scenario?

A. If we send our troops abroad on some operation in the future, I don’t think it’s good enough to say, ‘Well, we’ll send our troops over there, but we’re not going to provide air support because some other nation will.’

Q. Is the Afghanistan experience one of the reasons we haven’t heard a lot about the F-35?s capability to providing close air support for ground troops engaged in counter-insurgency fighting? I’m thinking of how using air strikes in Afghanistan has become very controversial because of civilian casualties.

A. I spent six months in Afghanistan as deputy commander for air. I was essentially the air component commander for ISAF in 2006. I can tell you that air power saves soldiers’ lives. There is a good case to be made but it just hasn’t been made.

Q. You don’t hear the Conservative government making that case now?

A. Overall communications have been weak. But we’ve seen that before with the government. They are very parsimonious, shall we say, with their communications. We need a rigorous debate. We need to hash it out in public.

Q. Let’s say the case for new jet fighters was more compellingly established. Wouldn’t that still leave open the option of buying a cheaper, less cutting-edge fighter than the F-35, one that’s already on the market?

A. The F-35 gives us a jet at the beginning of its technological life span. If you buy a jet at the end of its life span, that means in five to ten years it’s going to be obsolete. That means you’re going to have to try to add technology and that’s really tough. The growth potential, the ability to evolve this jet over the next 30-40 years, far surpasses anything else on the market.

Q. There are defence analysts who say the really technologically advanced idea would be to shift to relying more on pilotless drones. What about that option?

A. It’s not there yet. There’s going to be one more generation of manned fighters, carrying through to 2030, 2040. The technology is not mature enough yet for what we call UCAVs—Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles.

Q. There’s another line of criticism—that the F-35 is a basically an expensive toy, and Canada just doesn’t need a cool stealth fighter.

A. Stealth is not some voodoo technology that lets you go in and willy-nilly take over Third World nations at will. It simply allows the pilot to survive. It isn’t necessary for every mission, but for some. For instance, reconnaissance. They can go quietly into territory, undetected, and come back safely. Or they can do a mission like the Kosovo bombing campaign, where there was a fairly sophisticated air defence system, and come back completely safely.

Q. A final question. The F-35 purchase, if it goes ahead, will be hugely expensive. Even if it’s the best choice among fighter jets, isn’t there a strong argument that, in a time of spending restraint, Canada could make more practical use of other new equipment, like icebreakers or those search and rescue planes?

A. That’s a false dilemma, one often posed about military spending. If you do this, you preclude that. One of the key elements that the military struggles with is to preserve a balance in all areas. Having an incredible capability in the air, while denuding the army and sinking the navy, doesn’t work. There’s a whole range of programs that seek to maintain that balance. In the planning cycle, there is that balance, and buying these fighters does not preclude those other things."

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2010, 06:16
by pushoksti
The US should just let Canada buy the F-22 already. It's obvious the Canadian government is willing to spend the big bucks with this $16 billion dollar deal. 50 Raptors governing Canada is a much better deterrent than 65 F-35's or 80 F/A-18 hornets.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2010, 07:15
by Prinz_Eugn
F-22's will be much more expensive to maintain and operate, meaning they'll be more expensive in the long run. Plus, they'll need extensive (and expensive) modification for export, in addition to an act of congress.

The F-35 is a lot more bang for the buck.

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2010, 20:16
by pushoksti
Prinz_Eugn wrote:F-22's will be much more expensive to maintain and operate, meaning they'll be more expensive in the long run. Plus, they'll need extensive (and expensive) modification for export, in addition to an act of congress.

The F-35 is a lot more bang for the buck.


While I agree with you 100%, the Canadian public, nor does the Liberal opposition get that. The Canadian public gets fed nonsense from the Liberals and they take it in like idiots. Basically it goes likes this:

One engine - bad.
Two engines - good.

$16 billion for national defense - bad.
More money for healthcare and social programs - good.

The Liberals are promising to cancel the "contract" - nothing has been signed yet - if they win the next election. They favor holding a competitive bid from other tenders, which makes sense if there were other companies that build 5th gen fighters. I don't think we are getting that bad of a deal for the F-35 @ $70-75million per aircraft, compare that to the Super Hornet, Eurofighter and Grippen which will all be obsolete in 10 years.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2010, 04:24
by geogen
Hi pushok,

I have to respect the opposition's alarmism and hysteria and would surely be in the center of it myself. Sure, there's a bunch of misinfo being thrown around by all sides in order to achieve influence on their respective agenda, but one has to see the $16b F-35 deal as only begging for opposition. Its definitely becoming a major Public relations blunder and the F-35s justification was/is not being well communicated. Of course, $16b for a Canadian aircraft acquisition is a HUGE mil expense and chunk of the procurement budget proportionately for Canada, even if it's stretched over a period of years. That's part of the PR blunder in selling it. But in today's financial insecurity and woes, to justify such an unprecedented budget for a questionable jet aircraft type (which could have cheaper alternatives) will naturally require a big soul searching session.

As for a CF-22, I do concur that it would be a massive Life Cycle Cost for a budget the size of Canada's despite the obvious Air sovereignty capability. But imho, Canada would benefit to re-evaluate the CF-18 replacement decision and mabye decide by 2014 if they need an extra year.

Personally, I think Canada would want maximal endurance and range from of any tactical platform replacement, which would clearly mean CFT and or external fuel tanks. It would seem that range therefore would be a major priority but whatever Canada selects, the actual (Procurement) cost and LCC cost as estimated by around 2013 will probably end up being a deciding factor too, as well as how many airframes would be afforded.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2010, 05:03
by spazsinbad
geogen, it is interesting that you raise the range issue. How will a mythical CF-22 beat the REAL F-35A regarding [clean - stealthy] range? Our old friend 'solomom'? at SNAFU! took exception "the myth of the long ranged F-22 and its proposed derivatives is something that must be slain" to ELP erroneous claims on this issue:

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com/2010/ ... e-lie.html

'solomon': "Oh and to add a little pain to the F-22 advocates out there...GUESS WHAT! Even the F-35B will be longer ranged than the F-22 if they're both in stealth configuration."

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2010, 07:45
by geogen
I actually wasn't trying to imply a clean CF-22 would be the optimal long-ranged alternative to a clean CF-35, sorry for mix up. :)

Just conjecturing that Canada, given a hypothetical replacement jet competition, could put elevated priority in the airframe's patrol endurance (as it would be configured) and potential intercept range at high Mach, e.g, as a main requirement along w/ Procurement/Life Cycle Cost..

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2010, 07:57
by SpudmanWP
When figuring the cost of an "export" F-22, don't forget the cost of either swapping out all the electronics for F-35 stuff or redesigning the F-22 stuff to be exportable.. then throw the cost of testing and re-certification on top of that.

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2010, 08:05
by spazsinbad
geogen, on previous page of this thread are two articles (interviews) of 'Canadian Air Force' knowledgeables which discount such requirements as 'patrol endurance' and 'potential intercept range at high Mach' to look at another picture for the future - not looking at the 'old world' so to speak.

Talking F-35s with a former head of the air force by John Geddes on Friday, October 29, 2010

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/10/29/talk ... air-force/
&
F-35 jets right choice for Canada Published On Tue Aug 17 by Paul Manson & Angus Watt

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... cle/848664

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 01:45
by spazsinbad
Libyan crisis should change debate on F-35 Keith Beardsley March 1, 2011

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... e-on-f-35/

"It must be a bit embarrassing these days for critics who have been questioning the Conservative government’s purchase of new military equipment.

As the situation in Libya deteriorates and Muammar Gaddafi counters the efforts of the population to remove him, western powers must now consider if they will use military force to protect the population. In the initial stages this usually involves the use of air power to enforce a “no fly” zone. If Libyan military aircraft violate that zone they would be shot down.

This requires combat-trained pilots in sophisticated jet fighters, flying aircraft suitably equipped for air to air combat. It is more than likely that Libyan ground forces would deploy antiaircraft missile systems to protect their fighters. As such, you also need aircraft capable of a ground attack role to knock the launchers out. A fighter that has stealth technology that makes it difficult for enemy radar to lock onto and destroy it is certainly an asset. Come to think of it that does sound a lot like the F-35.

Back when the F-35 debate first started, few would have imagined Canada might be asked to participate in such an endeavour. Certainly the Liberals didn’t with their vow to scrap the contract, nor did some of the lefties who went so far as to suggest we didn’t need any such aircraft at all, and should just use drones instead.

There was much similar criticism directed at the Conservatives when they decided to purchase C-17s and the new Hercules aircraft. These are the same aircraft that Canada is now deploying to evacuate civilians from Libya.

Having forgotten all that, the Liberals are up on their soapbox insisting Canada be front and centre in Libya, demanding Ottawa do more to rescue civilians and pressure Gaddafi. Nice, but besides pounding the table and sounding self-important you have to be able to back up your brave talk. If the UN or the western countries or NATO decides that force must be used we would look pretty stupid waving our flag from the sidelines, urging the rest of the world to “go and get them boys” because unfortunately we don’t have the equipment.

We don’t live in a perfect world and one reason you give your armed forces the very best equipment is that you never know when it might be needed. You never know when another Libya or Bosnia will come along. Above all, it is critical that any government do everything it can to protect our brave men and women and bring them back alive."

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 03:28
by butters
What a bunch of jingoistic, right-wing partisan hyperbole. From a long-time party shill who knows everything about spin-doctoring for his masters, and nothing about combat aircraft, doctrine, or issues.C-17 red herrings and laughable exaggerations of the lethal military sophistication of collapsing Third World regimes do not make a wildly over-priced, chubby bomb truck the answer to Canada's sovereignty requirements :roll:

Next time, why not try for a just little more legitimacy in your fanboy cutting and pasting, and stick to quoting a shill who at least knows *something* about the issues. You know, someone like Dr Loren Feelgood, or maybe the head of the Lockheed Martin PR department.

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 04:14
by spazsinbad
Cut and paste your own material.

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 04:36
by geogen
LoL... sorry, but that was a good comeback by spazs... :)

As for what all-of-a-sudden Canada should be thinking more 'strategically' about now though, taking into consideration any future 'potential Libya-like crisis contigency'... imho Canada would be better able to employ better ENDURANCE and more flexible capability (yes Canadian policymakers, endurance and range IS critical to your future viability) with... yes, the F-15SE type.

Hard to believe, given the latest heavy hitting 2010-2011 marketing and advertising of the F-35 Program, but the cold facts are that by 2017, the F-15SE type would enable better range/endurance (for no-fly zone enforcement), plus more flexibile mission capabilities (e.g., recon or EA jamming and variety of A2A and A2G munitions cleared). Not to mention the back-seat-force-multiplying situational awareness!!

Lastly... was it also mentioned the actual Unit Procurement Cost for an F-15SE would likely be cheaper as well? Hmm.

(note: imho, go with GE-132 manufactured in Canada, with total thrust down-rated to 29.5k lbf for durability sake and for reduced maintenance being considered).

Respects and God speed Canada.

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 04:55
by Prinz_Eugn
More Recon and EA? Uh, probably not. User interface and automation takes away a lot of the need for a backseater. Remember when big airplanes had navigators and flight engineers? Plus operational costs are going to be higher thanks to the relatively small airframe base since F-15SE as proposed is going to be different enough from an F-15A-E to negate a lot of commonality. Oh, and having less customers to diffuse the cost of designing and testing upgrades.

2017 is going to come and go before we know it. They're looking for airplanes for the next 30 years, not the next 10 or 15.

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 05:14
by geogen
Sir, if you are implying that an IOC F-15SE in 2017 would not be able to operate under a 25 yr upgradeable service life accordingly (to complement the next-gen tactical jet now necessary due to premature F-22 line kill), then I would disagree.

If you are arguing that USAF, procuring 25 F-35A units per yr (best case scenario) under FRP, would be the most feasible and rational 25 yr procurement plan for USAF... then I would highly disagree with you and be willing to place a long-term wager with you on that. And when the future realities become more evident... I will not accept your collection, as I will understand the confusion.

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 06:01
by exorcet
geogen wrote:the F-15SE type would enable better range/endurance (for no-fly zone enforcement), plus more flexibile mission capabilities (e.g., recon or EA jamming and variety of A2A and A2G munitions cleared). Not to mention the back-seat-force-multiplying situational awareness!


What's the range on the F-15 SE? I should probably go look it up, but I never memorized how much fuel the CFT's on the E carry. If the total fuel load goes up to ~ 20,000, which is near what it is with two 600 gal tanks, the fuel fraction isn't going to be much better than the F-35's. If you start to put stuff on the F-15 externally, endurance will only get worse. I only know that AIM-120's fit in the CFT bays (enough for no fly zone though). Do SDB's fit?

What recon and EA does the SE have over the F-35? And though the F-35 has no rear seat, DAS is pretty good set of "eyes".

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 06:46
by geogen
To keep this on-topic in terms of alternative Canadian procurements to the F-35... I actually would propose a 3rd CFT option for F-15Se - an AAM oriented mission CFT (4x AAM-CFT configured pylon) w/ possible LO pylon design. That would give the F-15Se the full 10,500lb of CFT fuel. Personally... on a later lot, I would conceive an aft-canopy fuel cell as well (for an additional 1.5-2,000lb) and possibly shift the airbrakes above the engine fuselage nacelles. But if you require truly extended range to that configuration, then sure, your twin wing EFTs would the add 7,500lb to that total (taking you upwards to 31k-33,000+ lb gas).

I would also add doable buddy tanking capability to a future F-15. That would save a ton of gas and $$ requiring strategic tanking.

Recon advantages could include: the next-gen Litening SE pod, what I would propose as a strategic Low Observable 11 inch (280mm) LW IRST pod under the centerline and ALQ-218 V 3 pods on the far outboard wing stations. Or interchange the next-gen Elta-Rafael SoJ/EA jam pod on the centerline for your 'flexible' game-changing capabilities. Not quite and EO DAS, but I'd propose a PAWS-3 built into the skin/CFT to cue a future ATDIRCM.

Finally, yes... a back seat, combined with various future air-combat and intel capabilities would be an added 'optional' asset for a small tactical force structure.

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 07:04
by Prinz_Eugn
geogen wrote:To keep this on-topic in terms of alternative Canadian procurements to the F-35... I actually would propose a 3rd CFT option for F-15Se - an AAM oriented mission CFT (4x AAM-CFT configured pylon) w/ possible LO pylon design. That would give the F-15Se the full 10,500lb of CFT fuel. Personally... on a later lot, I would conceive an aft-canopy fuel cell as well (for an additional 1.5-2,000lb) and possibly shift the airbrakes above the engine fuselage nacelles. But if you require truly extended range to that configuration, then sure, your twin wing EFTs would the add 7,500lb to that total (taking you upwards to 31k-33,000+ lb gas).

I would also add doable buddy tanking capability to a future F-15. That would save a ton of gas and $$ requiring strategic tanking.

Recon advantages could include: the next-gen Litening SE pod, what I would propose as a strategic Low Observable 11 inch (280mm) LW IRST pod under the centerline and ALQ-218 V 3 pods on the far outboard wing stations. Or interchange the next-gen Elta-Rafael SoJ/EA jam pod on the centerline for your 'flexible' game-changing capabilities. Not quite and EO DAS, but I'd propose a PAWS-3 built into the skin/CFT to cue a future ATDIRCM.

Finally, yes... a back seat, combined with various future air-combat and intel capabilities would be an added 'optional' asset for a small tactical force structure.


And all this is supposed to be cheaper than the F-35? You have got to be kidding. Think design, testing, manufacturing, maintenance...

Making an F-15SE nearly as capable as an F-35 is also going to make it cost nearly as much, and it's still going to have basic disadvantages (lots of drag and increased RCS from external pods).

F-15's of any stripe are going to be less survivable than the F-35, especially in 2035. Any EA tricks or whatever magic that's going to make an F-15 more survivable is going to work better on an F-35, since it has a lower signature to start out with and can do more missions while maintaining that signature.

Oh, and can the F-15 fly off of boats? If so, please contact the RN, Marine Corps, and Navy, oh, and I guess the Italians, too.

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 07:32
by geogen
Now consider an actual FY15 budget capable of procuring 25-30 airframes. F-15SE would likely be cheaper per unit given the probable near-term procurement budget reductions. (as opposed to the procurement budgets still officially estimated and expected). That is where strategic planning and thinking comes into play.

No, F-15 won't be flying off boats... an interim USN plan could be to study a joint USAF/USN FA-XX 5.5 gen plan, further upgrade to a cheap block III+ standard SH acquisition complete with new stand-off weapons/systems in the interim and continue developing the carrier-based UCAV concept satisfying long-range VLO mission capabilities. imho.

This is all besides the point of course, in arguing that Canada could consider a long-endurance, flexible, highly long-range situationally aware airframe instead - one costing less to maintain than the current F-15E and one still being fully interoperable with USAF.

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 08:29
by SpudmanWP
First... dude, your "best case scenario" of 25 F-35A's per year is sadly under what it will be. This year it's 23 for crying out lout. Do you think that after SDD id done they will only make another two per year? FY2015 is scheduled for 50 F-35's (with 70 in FY2016).

Second, in no world will a F-15SE loaded with more avionics than even Boeing plans be cheaper than a F-35. Boeing itself said $110 million per copy.

Third, the lifecycle cost of the F-15SE will also be more than the F-35 largely due to fuel costs (twin engines).

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 08:56
by geogen
Spud-dude... be advised, per SecDEF statements: going forward the Defense Buying Power is going to be REDUCED compared to FY11. By FY15/FY16, real budgets will actually be reduced! Now, please factor this into the officially projected and apparently still expected future F-35 procurement budgets!

Now factor in a $4B +/- annual procurement budget into the equation... and yes, an F-15SE PUC cost will be cheaper than block III F-35A PUC cost in FY15, let alone a block IV F-35A. I will be perfectly willing to place a private wager with you (or at least on what the prevailing F-35A PUC cost will be in FY14 vs an FY14 F-15).

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 09:24
by shep1978
Thanks, yet another good thread derailed with talk of more whacky hypotheticals again, there's a suprise!

Is there any thread that doesn't get derailed with 'but XYZ should be bought instead' Geo?

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 17:12
by SpudmanWP
Go look at the FY12 budget docs which JUST CAME OUT an they say 50/70 F-35As in 2015/16.

Yes, the F-15SE & all your additional avionics will likely have a lower PUC than LRIP F-35As.... but, and it's a big one, in any give year when you buy a F-35 vs a F-15SE+, the F-35 will still be cheaper (Annual Total Weapon System Cost). You are including past and future development cost in the F-35 which is mostly sunk and will be spent whether you buy the F-15SE+ or not.

Considering that you are putting this F-15SE+ forward as a stopgap & economical alternative to the F-35A, you are being very disingenuous when tossing out numbers.

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 18:27
by wrightwing
geogen wrote:Sir, if you are implying that an IOC F-15SE in 2017 would not be able to operate under a 25 yr upgradeable service life accordingly (to complement the next-gen tactical jet now necessary due to premature F-22 line kill), then I would disagree.

If you are arguing that USAF, procuring 25 F-35A units per yr (best case scenario) under FRP, would be the most feasible and rational 25 yr procurement plan for USAF... then I would highly disagree with you and be willing to place a long-term wager with you on that. And when the future realities become more evident... I will not accept your collection, as I will understand the confusion.


It's not the airframe life that's in question. It's the F-15's ability to operate in the threat environment that will exist in that time frame. As for F-35 procurement, it's a pretty laughable assumption that full rate production, will only add 2 airframes/year.

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2011, 18:42
by skicountry
spazsinbad wrote: F-35 jets right choice for Canada Published On Tue Aug 17 by Paul Manson & Angus Watt

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... cle/848664



While I respect and admire former chief of the air force and chief of general staff Paul Manson, it might be fair to point out that he was president of Lockheed Martin Canada and that he is very active in the Conference of Defense Associations, a powerful defense think tank/lobby group, that has come out strongly in favor of the F-35. He has earned the right to have an opinion, but that opinion is not entirely impartial.

Despite all this, I really fail to see what other purchase the Canadian government can make. A non-US type is not an option, and of the three US aircraft, the F-15SE, F-18E/F, and F-35, only the last provides that type of industrial benefits that got Canada involved in the program in the first place. Canada has a good thing going in terms of defense cooperation with the US and the F-35 will find many more potential buyers over its life than any evolved F-18 or F-15 variants.

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2011, 03:26
by exorcet
geogen wrote:To keep this on-topic in terms of alternative Canadian procurements to the F-35... I actually would propose a 3rd CFT option for F-15Se - an AAM oriented mission CFT (4x AAM-CFT configured pylon) w/ possible LO pylon design. That would give the F-15Se the full 10,500lb of CFT fuel. Personally... on a later lot, I would conceive an aft-canopy fuel cell as well (for an additional 1.5-2,000lb) and possibly shift the airbrakes above the engine fuselage nacelles. But if you require truly extended range to that configuration, then sure, your twin wing EFTs would the add 7,500lb to that total (taking you upwards to 31k-33,000+ lb gas).

Something like the F/A-18 IN's weapons pod seems doable, though it would still take time. The F-15SE isn't ready for action yet as is. Everything else sounds like a pretty big project though. And if you're going to be running EXT's by default, might as well get the F-15E over the F-15SE and save on buying RAM coatings.

As for the pods, the F-35's IRST is basically a LIGHTNING pod without the drag. The F-35's Passive sensors and AN/APG-81 give it a lot to work with in terms of EW. The F-15 idea could work in a high endurance role, but it sounds like the F-35 would be in service first or with more capability.

Unread postPosted: 03 Mar 2011, 12:10
by alloycowboy
exorcet...... With all do respect both the F-15 and the F-18 are sunset aircraft (at the end of there life) meaning there persepective parts supply will soon run dry or at the very least get extremely expensive. Not to mention both aircraft both aircraft were initally designed on a slide rule.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2011, 05:49
by slicktry
Well, why not then just give Northrop a call and lets order some CF-23's for Canada. Problem solved! Russia will have no clue what's buzzing their Bear's. Now if we can get them in time to do some training missions over Libya we'll be all set...

God Bless
Jer

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2011, 06:10
by geogen
slicktry wrote:Well, why not then just give Northrop a call and lets order some CF-23's for Canada. Problem solved!...


Well, re: the main theme of your post... while you're giving Northrop a call, tell them to also build a prototype AS-14 as well. That could have been a viable joint-service stopgap solution, until a 2030 NGAD phased into the picture. :shrug:

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2011, 07:41
by pushoksti
skicountry wrote:Despite all this, I really fail to see what other purchase the Canadian government can make. A non-US type is not an option, and of the three US aircraft, the F-15SE, F-18E/F, and F-35, only the last provides that type of industrial benefits that got Canada involved in the program in the first place. Canada has a good thing going in terms of defense cooperation with the US and the F-35 will find many more potential buyers over its life than any evolved F-18 or F-15 variants.


Finally, someone with some logical sense from the last dozen posts.

Fact is, Canada is getting the F-35 and thats all there is to it. The F-35 is the best and ONLY 5th generation choice available to us. Purchasing something like the F-15SE or F-18SH would be a colossal waste of time and money.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2011, 08:58
by exorcet
alloycowboy wrote:exorcet...... With all do respect both the F-15 and the F-18 are sunset aircraft (at the end of there life) meaning there persepective parts supply will soon run dry or at the very least get extremely expensive. Not to mention both aircraft both aircraft were initally designed on a slide rule.


Well, that depends on the sales of the latest versions. If Boeing can keep finding buyers, I'm sure that both will remain around a bit longer. And while each original design may have come from a slide rule, quite a few newer parts didn't. The Eagle and Hornet are no longer cutting edge, but they certainly aren't useless.

Unread postPosted: 04 Mar 2011, 09:31
by shep1978
Any chance we can keep this about the F-35 for Canada and not keep letting it drift off into fantasy land with talk of Silent Eagles and now of all things Black Widows. Would be nice to be able to keep just one thread clear of dreamers.

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2011, 19:37
by skicountry
The numbers are in and it looks like the Parliamentary Budget office thinks the 65 F-35s will cost Canada nearly $30 billion over their operational life spans.

Here’s the Toronto Star link,

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/arti ... mates?bn=1

And the Budget Office analysis,

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2011, 23:08
by cafpilot
So I just spent a few minutes reading the actual report. The biggest thing is how they came up with those numbers in the acquisition section.

The used the cost of $10,000 per KG (historical analysis) to figure out the supposed cost because they can't find the actual numbers. So this is how they get $128 million (a mean number over the years of delivery).

So to compare actual aircraft with the $10,000 per KG in 2010 dollars. All are empty weight, actual fly away costs to follow:

F-35A 13318 kg = $133 million $70 million target price
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet 14552 kg = $145 million $60 million plus actual cost
F-15 14300 kg = $143 million $100 million (2006)
F-22 19800 kg = $197 million $150 million (2009)

So as you can see there is a big differance between this report's estimated price and actual prices paid for these aircraft. The biggest thing when you go on weight alone is that the F-35 is actually the cheapest of these comparable aircraft.

I would take this report with a grain of salt, of course most people will never read the actual report.

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2011, 23:45
by SpudmanWP
I also noticed (on the last page I think) that the author thinks that one solution to not have P&D on the F-35A is to buy the F-35C instead. This would also help with a slower approach (in icy conditions) and might alleviate the need for a drag chute.

The problem is that he also said that the C would have less range than the A. :)

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2011, 00:07
by cafpilot
Going through the report another thing that he mentions is that the cancelation of the second engine will further escalate costs as it will now be sole source production. - Shouldn't it be the other way around? With the second engine cut from the program the development costs for the engine aren't tacked onto the production run thus lowering costs.

He also goes into the refueling issue, do we get the probe and drogue, or keep the plug-in type on the A model and get replacement for our getting-old refueling aircraft? Considering our C-17 has the plug-in type, why don't we stay with that type.

cheers

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2011, 00:48
by popcorn
Politics.

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2011, 01:07
by butters
cafpilot wrote:So I just spent a few minutes reading the actual report. The biggest thing is how they came up with those numbers in the acquisition section.

The used the cost of $10,000 per KG (historical analysis) to figure out the supposed cost because they can't find the actual numbers. So this is how they get $128 million (a mean number over the years of delivery).

So to compare actual aircraft with the $10,000 per KG in 2010 dollars. All are empty weight, actual fly away costs to follow:

F-35A 13318 kg = $133 million $70 million target price
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet 14552 kg = $145 million $60 million plus actual cost
F-15 14300 kg = $143 million $100 million (2006)
F-22 19800 kg = $197 million $150 million (2009)

So as you can see there is a big differance between this report's estimated price and actual prices paid for these aircraft. The biggest thing when you go on weight alone is that the F-35 is actually the cheapest of these comparable aircraft.

I would take this report with a grain of salt, of course most people will never read the actual report.


Well, I did read the actual report, and its sober assessment of the facts and the history of advanced combat a/c development and production costs is a refreshing change from the Pollyannaesque fantasy pronouncements that continually emanate from Lockmart and the DOD program officials. And as for the $150M "actual cost" of the F-22 - I don't think so. In fact, even the $197M price is too low. The actual unit production cost (not total procurement) of the 2009 production lot (20 a/c) was $213M US. As documented here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler03272009.html

The idea that an operational and tactically useful F-35 will ever be available for $70M is pure nonsense. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2011, 02:26
by SpudmanWP
I have two major problems with that report.

1. Part of the problem is that people are mixing up the numbers.

The Canadian $450 is lifetime cost
The F-22 $150 is Flyaway
The F-35 $60-70 is Recurring Flyaway

We will never get a straight answer until people start using the same type of number.

For instance, the F-22's upgrade costs are still happening. The USAF just announced that they want to spend $16 billion on F-22 upgrades. Thats an average of $85 million per airframe.

2. It has jacked up the procurement costs. It based it's procurement costs on a per pound model instead of historical trends in the F-35 program. Looking at the $9.7 Billion / 65 would average $150 million. This is absurd for F-35s ordered from 2014 to 2020. Even the latest FY2012 docs (which have not taken into account the latest reductions in LRIP contracts) place the FY2014 F-35A at $132 (Weapon System Cost), FY2015 at $119, FY2016 at $110, etc. The DND (Canadian Department of National Defense) was a lot closer when they put the acquisition at $6 billion which put the average buy at $92 million.

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2011, 02:36
by luke_sandoz
As best as I can figure out, when you factor the difference in the two estimates . . the PBO uses 30 years while the Government's estimate is over 20, when you factor out the 2 Life Extension/Upgrades the 20% purchase price premium this report pretty much matches the Life Cycle costs the Government has been telling us.

The scary headlines don't match the reality of the data.

And then of course is the method used to forecast the costs - based on aircraft weight. 40 years of Integrated Logistics Analysis have just been euthanized by this "method"

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2011, 03:09
by cafpilot
Well, I did read the actual report, and its sober assessment of the facts and the history of advanced combat a/c development and production costs is a refreshing change from the Pollyannaesque fantasy pronouncements that continually emanate from Lockmart and the DOD program officials. And as for the $150M "actual cost" of the F-22 - I don't think so. In fact, even the $197M price is too low. The actual unit production cost (not total procurement) of the 2009 production lot (20 a/c) was $213M US. As documented here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler03272009.html

The idea that an operational and tactically useful F-35 will ever be available for $70M is pure nonsense. :roll:[/quote]


Maybe I should have stated the F-22 cost was fly away like others have already mentioned. The main point is that the method of finding the F-35's acquisition cost is flawed. Using the same logic provides the forementioned numbers and in comparison to actual fly away costs are proved to be wrong. You can't base your analysis on weight alone. In the acquisiton section they mention the cost of one F-35 is on average $128.8 just for the aircraft. Page 26

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2011, 04:33
by spazsinbad
Official Canadian F-35 Buy reasoning:

Meet the F-35 Lightning II – Canada’s Next Fighter by Lieutenant-General André Deschamps

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo11/no ... ps-eng.asp

PDF of above webpage (180Kbs): http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo11/no ... ps-eng.pdf

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2011, 07:20
by handyman
Its probably in Canada's interest to have a huge fleet of identical aircraft just south of the border to train and maintain along side. Whatever they decide to buy I hope they can purchase enough to be a formidable force in their own right.

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2011, 08:14
by shep1978
butters wrote:Well, I did read the actual report, and its sober assessment of the facts and the history of advanced combat a/c development and production costs is a refreshing change from the Pollyannaesque fantasy pronouncements that continually emanate from Lockmart and the DOD program officials. And as for the $150M "actual cost" of the F-22 - I don't think so. In fact, even the $197M price is too low. The actual unit production cost (not total procurement) of the 2009 production lot (20 a/c) was $213M US. As documented here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler03272009.html

The idea that an operational and tactically useful F-35 will ever be available for $70M is pure nonsense. :roll:


Counterpunch as a credible source? Really?
We have sunk to new lows haven't we.

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2011, 14:09
by luke_sandoz
cafpilot wrote:Going through the report another thing that he mentions is that the cancelation of the second engine will further escalate costs as it will now be sole source production. - Shouldn't it be the other way around? With the second engine cut from the program the development costs for the engine aren't tacked onto the production run thus lowering costs.

cheers


Yes. The report is 100% wrong on the second engine issue. Very bad mistake, but then these are accountants and that would "look" like an expense because of "no competition".

Just like it is totally wrong - dumb as a bag of hammers actually, to estimate future aircraft costs based on their weight. However thought up that doozy should be checked for drug use.

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2011, 08:28
by spazsinbad
I have read plenty of commentary that Canada does not 'go expeditionary'? Hence no need for F-35s to fit with allies?

Canadian fighter jets heading to Libya By DAVID AKIN, Parliamentary Bureau Chief - March 17, 2011

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2 ... 62461.html

"OTTAWA - Canada will send six CF-18 fighter jets to southern Europe to help enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, defence sources told QMI Agency.

Fighter jets from CFB Bagotville in Quebec are expected to head to Europe as soon as various diplomatic clearances are obtained.

A spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay, though, would not provide official confirmation of the mission.

"We do not comment on speculation and this is an unconfirmed story," said MacKay spokesman Jay Paxton.

After days of debate, the United Nations Security Council decided on Thursday to "establish a ban on all flights in the airspace" over Libya.

"Today the Security Council has responded to the Libyan people's cry for help," said Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador the UN.

The mission for fighter jets from Canada and other countries could involve a combination of targeting infrastructure that is important to the Libyan Air Force, such as radar installations, or attempting to shoot down any Libyan Air Force jets.

That said, the mandate from the UN security council authorizes "all necessary measures" be taken short of invading Libya in order to protect Libyan citizens and rebels from attacks by forces loyal to Libyan Leader Moammar Gadhafi."

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2011, 21:27
by butters
shep1978: "Counterpunch as a credible source? Really?
We have sunk to new lows haven't we."

butters: That's rich... A troll is so lacking in logical acumen that he doesn't even know that if the numbers are right, they're right,(Regardless of your opinion of the person/publication stating them) is accusing me of having 'sunk to a new low'. As if he's ever crept up from under his rock high enough to do more than spew lame ad hominems at his betters...

spazsinbad: "I have read plenty of commentary that Canada does not 'go expeditionary'? Hence no need for F-35s to fit with allies?"

butters: And how does that make the F-35 a necessity? There is no compelling reason for us to pony up billions of extra dollars for exorbitantly expensive, dubiously stealthy battlefield interdiction fighters just so the American operational planners will be happy. Modern coalition warfare has always been carried out with a variety of different aircraft and tactical doctrines. And has been remarkably successful, nonetheless. If it's so damned important to the USAF that everyone at their party be in matching outfits, let them pay for them.

Canada's actual military needs could be more than adequately satisfied by SuperHornets or Gripen NGs. Hell, if we bought Gripens instead of JSFubars, we'd have enough money left over for a couple of Saab 340 Erieye AEWs and some extra tankers. Not that I'd ever expect our govt to do something as sensible as that.

Still, it seems that the BQ has now withdrawn their support of the F-35, and without that, no Conservative minority govt will ever be able to pass a funding bill for the purchase of such an outrageously expensive and militarily unnecessary flying boondoggle.

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2011, 23:41
by cafpilot
butters wrote:shep1978: "Counterpunch as a credible source? Really?
We have sunk to new lows haven't we."

butters: That's rich... A troll is so lacking in logical acumen that he doesn't even know that if the numbers are right, they're right,(Regardless of your opinion of the person/publication stating them) is accusing me of having 'sunk to a new low'. As if he's ever crept up from under his rock high enough to do more than spew lame ad hominems at his betters...

spazsinbad: "I have read plenty of commentary that Canada does not 'go expeditionary'? Hence no need for F-35s to fit with allies?"

butters: And how does that make the F-35 a necessity? There is no compelling reason for us to pony up billions of extra dollars for exorbitantly expensive, dubiously stealthy battlefield interdiction fighters just so the American operational planners will be happy. Modern coalition warfare has always been carried out with a variety of different aircraft and tactical doctrines. And has been remarkably successful, nonetheless. If it's so damned important to the USAF that everyone at their party be in matching outfits, let them pay for them.

Canada's actual military needs could be more than adequately satisfied by SuperHornets or Gripen NGs. Hell, if we bought Gripens instead of JSFubars, we'd have enough money left over for a couple of Saab 340 Erieye AEWs and some extra tankers. Not that I'd ever expect our govt to do something as sensible as that.

Still, it seems that the BQ has now withdrawn their support of the F-35, and without that, no Conservative minority govt will ever be able to pass a funding bill for the purchase of such an outrageously expensive and militarily unnecessary flying boondoggle.



Its funny how things change in a short time, 6 CF-18s are headed to Libya, so the whole Canada doesn't use its fighters outside Canada arguement is gone.

The Department of Defence puts out a nice comparison of its figures that are obtained from actual data, and not a made-up historical analysis based on weight. When reading the comparison you can see just how much the Parliamentary Budget Office got wrong in data but also assumptions. Probably because they have never worked in military procurement.

Which brings me to the next point Butters about your comment Canada using Gripens. The Gripen is seen by many pilots to be a small improvement over our current upgraded Hornets nevermind replacing them. But what would they know they just fly the aircraft operationally. The officers doing the planning at DND also have the same opinion, the Gripen just does not fit with where the Air Force wants to go. But then again they should probably take the opinion of some arm-chair general on the East coast.

The Gripen as a replacement for our hornets isn't a realistic option.

Moving along.

Unread postPosted: 21 Mar 2011, 23:36
by pushoksti
butters wrote:Canada's actual military needs could be more than adequately satisfied by SuperHornets or Gripen NGs.


Great, more comments from the peanut gallery. Please don't comment on what you don't know. Is it your job to analyze Canada's next fighter aircraft, do you know every single capability of both fighters, including the F-35 and compare them ACCURATELY?? No, you can't, so stop suggesting nonsense and stay in your lane, whatever it is.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 02:34
by pushoksti
RCAF worried Ottawa buying too few F-35 stealth fighters; no room for losses.

OTTAWA - Military planners are concerned the Harper government is buying too few F-35 fighters with almost no room for any loss of the stealth jets throughout their projected lifetimes, according to internal Defence Department briefings.

"Canada is the only country that did not account (for) attrition aircraft" in its proposal, said an undated capability-and-sustainment briefing given to senior officers late last year.

The eye-popping pricetag for individual joint strike fighters — ranging from $75 million to $150 million, depending upon the estimate — has limited the purchase to 65 aircraft.

Access-to-information records, obtained by The Canadian Press, show that when the joint strike fighter was proposed almost a decade ago the air force had recommended a fleet of 80.

Nevertheless, Defence Minister Peter MacKay has insisted 65 is adequate to meet Canada's military needs.

But a separate information briefing from earlier in 2010 shows that the country is purchasing "the minimum acceptable fleet size" and that the air force has been told it should "be prepared to manage the operational risk should the fleet drop below 65 due to attrition."

The F-35s are replacing roughly 77 CF-18s — just over half the original number of 138 purchased almost 30 years ago.
Some of the existing fleet was retired by the Chretien government to save money in the 1990s, while others were lost due to accidents.

Air force planners began to sweat after crunching attrition numbers for the new stealth jet last fall. They looked at the CF-18's accident rate per 100,000 hours of flying time and determined the F-35 might be able to evade radar, but it can't escape fate.

"Canada will lose aircraft; not a question of 'if' but 'when,'" said a Sept. 14, 2010, report.
On the upside, the planners believe that the highly automated F-35s will likely lead to fewer human-error — or "pilot-distraction" — crashes.

There was a spike in CF-18 accidents shortly after they were introduced as aircrew became familiar with them — something the air force worries will happen with the new jets.
The concern has been flagged to the attention of the Harper government, which "will consider the acquisition of replacement attrition aircraft," said the briefing.

But there's a problem there with that. Lockheed Martin is expecting to shut down its production line in 2035, while Canada is committed to flying the stealth fighter until at least 2050.
No one at the Defence Department was immediately available for comment on Tuesday.

But the executive director of the Air Force Association of Canada said it's understood the Harper government is buying what it can afford.
"The cost drives anything and everything, every time," said Dean Black, a retired lieutenant-colonel. "The folks in the highest offices in the country balance all of the considerations and we happen to be living in a tough economy. It is understood these are dire times."

Given the economic times and since the issue is routinely rocketed into the political stratosphere, the chances of the Harper government convincing anyone it needs more stealth jets is next to unlikely, he said.

Black said it's long been accepted that in the event of war or serious emergency, even with CF-18s, the Royal Canadian Air Force does not have enough fighters to maintain continuous air cover over each of the country's major cities.

A U.S. diplomatic cable recently highlighted Washington's concern about that fact and complained about the necessity of the U.S. Air Force stepping in to defend Canadian airspace.
"I'm hoping this report will focus the attention of our elected officials and most senior military officials on what it is we have to do to protect Canadians in Canada."

The air force report noted that Lockheed Martin will test-fly planes while building production models — a risky proposition according to critics.
The first Canadian F-35 is expected to be delivered in 2016 to the pilot training centre in the U.S.

It will take another three years before the first stealth plane makes it to an operational squadron, 4 Wing at CFB Cold Lake, Alta. Bagotville, Que., the other new home, won't see its first plane until 2020, according to internal documents.

The delivery schedule is pushing the current CF-18s to the very limit of their operational life. Even after a multibillion-dollar facelift, the workhorse of the fighter community, designed in the 1980s, is projected to be retired in 2020.


Agree 100%. I don't know how we will maintain current ops tempo with only 65 aircraft, assuming 100% serviceability. We have a hard time with what we have left and the Libya mission really stretched our available aircraft. I think 80-100 would be a much better number.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 15:07
by wrightwing
Agree 100%. I don't know how we will maintain current ops tempo with only 65 aircraft, assuming 100% serviceability. We have a hard time with what we have left and the Libya mission really stretched our available aircraft. I think 80-100 would be a much better number.


Not to mention the fact that the price per aircraft would probably be lower, with the larger buy. I agree with the 80-100 number being less risky, to keep a fleet of X# of airframes flying for the next 30-40yrs.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 16:21
by 1st503rdsgt
The F-35 line is gonna be open for a long time, even if orders get cut. There will be ample time for Canada to order more, or to order replacements.

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 16:54
by maus92
1st503rdsgt wrote:The F-35 line is gonna be open for a long time, even if orders get cut. There will be ample time for Canada to order more, or to order replacements.


It seems that what might happen is the reduction of F-35 orders in the near term to meet current budget realities, and to perform cheaper SLEP/upgrades to existing aircraft to bridge the anticipated shortfall in tactical aviation. It may even be good for the program to extend development a few more years to work out any problems yet to be discovered.

An important advantage is that contractors can avoid mass layoffs - something the politicians want to avoid. The downside is the cost of the program increases as purchases are stretched over time. Which may ultimately result in fewer aircraft procured over the life of the program.

I think the F-35A will survive because the USAF desperately needs new airframes. The -B's business, strategic, and tactical justifications are murkier, which still makes it a prime target for cancellation - hence the full-on PR blitz by the Marines, industry, and paid third party think tanks. The -C is in better position because it potentially provides the Navy with a longer range 1st day of war strike capability - and it's development can be stretched out without much impact to the fleet (because of the stellar F/A-18E/F's.)

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2011, 22:33
by m
butters wrote:shep1978: "Counterpunch as a credible source? Really?
We have sunk to new lows haven't we."

butters: That's rich... A troll is so lacking in logical acumen that he doesn't even know that if the numbers are right, they're right,(Regardless of your opinion of the person/publication stating them) is accusing me of having 'sunk to a new low'. As if he's ever crept up from under his rock high enough to do more than spew lame ad hominems at his betters...

spazsinbad: "I have read plenty of commentary that Canada does not 'go expeditionary'? Hence no need for F-35s to fit with allies?"

butters: And how does that make the F-35 a necessity? There is no compelling reason for us to pony up billions of extra dollars for exorbitantly expensive, dubiously stealthy battlefield interdiction fighters just so the American operational planners will be happy. Modern coalition warfare has always been carried out with a variety of different aircraft and tactical doctrines. And has been remarkably successful, nonetheless. If it's so damned important to the USAF that everyone at their party be in matching outfits, let them pay for them.

Canada's actual military needs could be more than adequately satisfied by SuperHornets or Gripen NGs. Hell, if we bought Gripens instead of JSFubars, we'd have enough money left over for a couple of Saab 340 Erieye AEWs and some extra tankers. Not that I'd ever expect our govt to do something as sensible as that.

Still, it seems that the BQ has now withdrawn their support of the F-35, and without that, no Conservative minority govt will ever be able to pass a funding bill for the purchase of such an outrageously expensive and militarily unnecessary flying boondoggle.



Do you really want Canada as a lead customer of the Gripen NG?

A Gripen NG does not exist yet, only a demonstrator. The first “production model” will probably fly in 2013. First limited production series? First operational Gripen NG: after 2020

The Dutch still even have no idea yet what the Gripen NG will actually cost?
Estimated now at ±$80-$82 million by the Dutch Government. But although offered in 2008, in 2011 the government still has not a clue development costs are calculated within ±$80 million?

One of the reasons the Gripen NG did not had a change, further developing the jet had to be paid for a great deal also by the Dutch. At that time Sweden would have ordered only ten Gripens, “if” the Dutch would have ordered the Gripen.
Being a lead customer was seen as to risky, it was not expected a lot of Gripens would have been sold.

Offer to Brazil: 36 Gripen NG > US$ 6 billion


Quote: we'd have enough money left over for a couple of Saab 340 Erieye AEWs and some extra tankers.

Don’t have the impression that much money will be left over for a couple of Saab 340’s



Former years, Sweden did not intent buying the Gripen NG. May be they will now, but is hardly impossible to do this on their own. They need a second country further developing the Gripen NG.
The Swedish Air Force even does not want a new jet before 2025, although some Swedish members of Parliament would like to.

The Swedish AirForce will scale down to 60-80 jets. When a new jet will be acquired, this will be a mix of C/D versions and new jets. So probably less than 50 Gripen NG’s?

Unfortunately, Volvo has been lobbying heavily for using the RM12+ instead of the F414 (Gripens, updating to E/F standard)

Sweden postponed a decision for another year, but when they don’t make a decision it’s not possible keeping production lines open. Last Gripen in 2012.



Quote: Modern coalition warfare has always been carried out with a variety of different aircraft and tactical doctrines.

With a hell a lot of problems!

But even when not going expeditionary, commonality has got a lot of advantages having a same kind of jet: spares, training, tactics, logistics, armament etc.

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 03:11
by spazsinbad
Pesky CANUK Pilots cannot keep QUIET! :D

F-35 is the 'best': Top military boss By BRYN WEESE, Parliamentary Bureau | November 3, 2011

"OTTAWA - Pilots with the Royal Canadian Air Force want to fly in F-35 stealth fighter jets when the current CF-18s are retired, according to the chief of defence staff....

..."Let me tell you that when I go to Cold Lake and I go to Bagotville and I talk to those young men and women who get in the F-18 and I ask them 'What aircraft so you want?' they tell me that they want the F-35 because it is the only fifth-generation, capable fighter for that next phase," Natynczyk told reporters...

...And the defence department's people who are working on the F-35 deal are still of the opinion the conventional takeoff and landing variant - the model Canada is buying - is on time and on budget.

"We have people who are working very closely with our allies who know this aircraft and know the kind of technology that is out there," he said. "The fact is, those folks are telling me that in their view the best aircraft is the F-35, and I accept that. Right up to the commander of the Royal Canadian Airforce -- a fighter pilot -- and I take that at face value."...

MORE AT DAT JUMP!

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 03:58
by munny
m wrote:
butters wrote:I wish I wasn't banned, so I could troll moar



Do you really want Canada as a lead customer of the Gripen NG?


Butters has been banned for quite a while :)

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 05:29
by popcorn
[quote="spazsinbad"]Pesky CANUK Pilots cannot keep QUIET! :D

Of all the nerve! Must be those oversized fighter pilot egos.. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 11:14
by m
spazsinbad wrote:Pesky CANUK Pilots cannot keep QUIET! :D

F-35 is the 'best': Top military boss By BRYN WEESE, Parliamentary Bureau | November 3, 2011

"OTTAWA - Pilots with the Royal Canadian Air Force want to fly in F-35 stealth fighter jets when the current CF-18s are retired, according to the chief of defence staff....



Spazinbad. May be an interesting article for your data base?

As in Canada, in 2009 Dutch F16 pilots, with experience in Afghanistan, argued in a article in a Dutch magazine in favour for the F35.
The magazine did talk with these pilots 4 weeks about their arguments and reasons why they think the F35 is the best option for them to fly and fight with.

In the article they are also angry and feel insulted the F35 has been nick named as toys for boys:

F-16 piloten met ervaring in Afghanistan houden deze week in weekblad Elsevier een pleidooi voor aanschaf van de Joint Strike Fighter. Ze ervaren het als een belediging dat de nieuwe vloot jachtvliegtuigen her en der wordt beschreven als toys voor de boys.

http://www.elsevier.nl/web/10230674/Dos ... tairen.htm

The article is in Dutch, did not translate the article no mistakes could be made. No problem nowadays with translator (web)


Could be interesting may be, a specific topic with a collection, view of pilots, world wide?

Greetz M

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2011, 11:45
by spazsinbad
m, thanks but I have no inkling whether this 'babelfish' translation is accurate. I'll make a Google Translate also:

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_ur ... =Translate

The Netherlands joint strike Fighter
Airmen: JSF increased survival chances soldiers
Wednesday 15 April 2009 13:37

F-16 airmen with experience in Afghanistan keeps these yielded in magazine Elsevier a pleading to purchase of the joint strike Fighter. They experience it as an insult that the new fleet fighters her is described and of as toys for the boys.

Airmen want gladly the JSF
The air power official luchtmachtofficieren to say that they do not have one's eye on on a very expensive apparatus full superfluous pinches. They indicate, however, that the JSF can increase the survival chances of Dutch soldiers strongly in future conflict areas. Also the improved precision weapons of the JSF will help to limit the number of citizen laughing sacrifice.

The aviators note that they must decide during their work in Afghanistan sometimes in a fraction of a second concerning life and dead: `If someone has importance at a good apparatus, then we it are, however.

Discussion
They spoke the previous weeks on personal title with Elsevier. Now the cabinet Balkenende IV and the government fractions on sharpest of the cut discuss purchase of the first two JSF-toestellen and concerning a possible delay of purchase of the rest of the weapon order, the royal air power refrains from every comment. The opinion of those who must work soon yes or no with the JSF, remains entirely as a result, outside consideration.

THE JSF have very sensitive sensoren as a result of which the aviator `can heen' see by the clouds what happened on the ground there. The current F-16 is not possible that, as a result of which the airmen during their work in Afghanistan sometimes to sit itself suppress in the cockpit: `Nothing frustrerender then country power colleague those shouts aid, whereas you can do nothing because of low bewolking.

Errors
THE JSF are considered as `flying internet' as a result of which communication errors are excluded. According to the jet hunter airmen the apparatus sucks the country power and the Navy in the digitalisation of the war. The new apparatus offers flying artillery according to them; flying cavalry and superior information on the state of the art on the battle field.


Now has each ground patrol one specialist who the communication with the air power maintains and a bomb to its aim can lead, the so-called Forward air Controller. In the future each ground soldier opens zonodig lijntje to the air power.

Operation
`We need the JSF correctly also in the lowest violence spectrum, aviators say. The practice learns that a humanitarian operation can turn or an inoffensively looking peace mission in confused circumstances pardoes in a violent meeting with heavily armed antagonists.

Laser-conducted bomb from a F-16 is now thrown off with an assumed exactitude of some meters. At the JSF it goes closely soon on the meter. That the chance on unintentional cousin damage limits. Thanks to the precisie are enough explosives lighter to reach the same impact. `At the neighbour farm not even fly the curtains.
________________________

http://translate.google.com/#nl|en|http ... tairen.htm

Pilots: JSF increases survival soldiers
Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:37 p.m.

F-16 pilots with experience in Afghanistan this week to hold a weekly magazine Elsevier plea for purchasing the Joint Strike Fighter. They experience it as an insult that the new fleet of fighters here and is described as toys for the boys.

Pilots want the JSF
The Air Force officers say they do not prey upon a very expensive machine full of unnecessary features. She does suggest that the survival of the JSF Dutch troops in conflict areas can greatly increase future. Also, the improved precision weapons for the JSF to help reduce the number of civilian casualties.

The pilots note that during their work in Afghanistan, sometimes in a split second to decide between life and death: "If someone has an interest in a good set, then we will."

Discussion
They talked in recent weeks in his personal capacity Elsevier. Now the fourth Balkenende government and the government majority on the cutting edge discuss purchase of the first two JSF aircraft and a possible postponement of the purchase of the rest of the weapon order, remembers the Royal Air Force from any comment. The opinion of those who will be whether the JSF to work, thus remains totally disregarded.

The JSF has very sensitive sensors allowing the pilot 'through the clouds "can see what is happening on the ground. The current F-16 can not, so the pilots during their work in Afghanistan sometimes gnashed their teeth in the cockpit: "Nothing more frustrating than army colleagues who cry for help, while due to low cloud can do nothing."

Errors
The JSF is a "flying Internet 'making communication errors are eliminated. According to the fighter pilots device sucks the army and the navy with the digitization of the war. The new device offers in their flying artillery, cavalry and flying superior information about the situation on the battlefield.


Currently, each patrol a land specialist communication with the Air Force maintains a bomb and could lead to his goal, known as Forward Air Controller. In the future soldier opens any means necessary, a line to the Air Force.

Operation
"We have just the JSF also needed in the lower spectrum of violence," said kites. Experience shows that a humanitarian operation or a harmless-looking peacekeeping mission in confusing circumstances suddenly turn into a violent clash with heavily armed opponents.

A laser-guided bomb from an F-16 will now be thrown off with an assumed accuracy of several meters. For the JSF, it will be in the meter. This limits the possibility of unintended collateral damage. The precision sufficient to light the same explosive effect. "The neighboring farm not even the curtains flutter."

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 01:54
by delvo
As much of a fan of F-35 as I am, I have to admit that it doesn't seem to be what Canada needs for its fighters, at least not on its own.

The job it's most important for is that "expeditionary" stuff, particularly ground troop support (as opposed to simple air strikes, at which its margin of superiority over alternatives isn't as wide). I've seen nobody denying that Canada has done such missions before, but a lot of Canooks don't like that, so it might not happen in the future, or happen a lot less often. At most, this job alone is a reason to buy only a small, purely expeditionary, dedicated force of Lightnings.

The other main job for a fighter that comes up in these conversations is domestic patrol. Again, this job's value to Canada is debatable, given the lack of enemies anywhere near it or stuff that others would want to try to take from so far away. But even accepting the need to have fighter patrols over their own land, air, & water, an F-35 is not the best plane out there for that particular job in a country that has so much space to cover. That calls for lots of range and speed, both of which an F-15 delivers more of for a lower price. And there already are a lot of F-15s and other F-15 buyers out there, so the base of support resources & supplies for them is already pretty big and well established. The latest version also has significantly reduced radar signature.

Also, although it's better for domestic patrols and not as good for foreign expeditions, it's still good enough for the latter (it is just an improvement of the successful F-15E, after all) to bring up the possibility of just going with an all-Eagle force, based on the argument that Lightnings are not enough better for that job to warrant the price and the splitting of your fighter force between two models (just for a type of job that's more troublesome in the country's politics & culture anyway).

However, none of the arguments in favor of Canook Eagles matter in real life because of a twist of recent Canook politics: those who oppose F-35 have proposed no alternative at all, not even the opening of a competition or analysis project to determine what alternative would be best, so the choice isn't "F-35 or something else"; it's "F-35 or nothing at all". And that's the way they want it, because to F-35 opponents in Canada, it's never been about what plane is best for the job; it's always been about pacifist objection to the job itself.

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 04:30
by pushoksti
delvo wrote:A That calls for lots of range and speed, both of which an F-15 delivers more of for a lower price.


The Flyaway cost a new Strike Eagle is more than a new JSF.

Aircraft RCS Comparison Chart

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 06:40
by alloycowboy
Just to be sure everyone understands why Canada is not considering the F-15 lets look at this aircraft Radar Cross section Chart shall we:


Image

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 06:41
by hb_pencil
delvo wrote:As much of a fan of F-35 as I am, I have to admit that it doesn't seem to be what Canada needs for its fighters, at least not on its own.

The job it's most important for is that "expeditionary" stuff, particularly ground troop support (as opposed to simple air strikes, at which its margin of superiority over alternatives isn't as wide). I've seen nobody denying that Canada has done such missions before, but a lot of Canooks don't like that, so it might not happen in the future, or happen a lot less often.


Ah, Canadian public support for these operations really hover around 40~60%. Its never really stopped Canadians from undertaking these operations nor really affected the political landscape in Canada. An unpopular war in Afghanistan did little to affect any of the elections in the past decade. Since 1990, Canada has participated in three major air expeditionary operations... all of which were relatively popular in the end (Desert Storm, Kosovo and Libya.)

delvo wrote:The other main job for a fighter that comes up in these conversations is domestic patrol. Again, this job's value to Canada is debatable, given the lack of enemies anywhere near it or stuff that others would want to try to take from so far away. But even accepting the need to have fighter patrols over their own land, air, & water, an F-35 is not the best plane out there for that particular job in a country that has so much space to cover. That calls for lots of range and speed, both of which an F-15 delivers more of for a lower price. And there already are a lot of F-15s and other F-15 buyers out there, so the base of support resources & supplies for them is already pretty big and well established. The latest version also has significantly reduced radar signature.


Additional range and speed requirements are not essential for Arctic intercepts. The actual needs are apparently well met by the CF-188, so the extra range of the F-15 is not a critical need. The F-35's advanced sensor systems actually would be more of a benefit; search patrols could be better coordinated between aircraft and data recorded that can be viewed by observers in ground stations.



delvo wrote:Also, although it's better for domestic patrols and not as good for foreign expeditions, it's still good enough for the latter (it is just an improvement of the successful F-15E, after all) to bring up the possibility of just going with an all-Eagle force, based on the argument that Lightnings are not enough better for that job to warrant the price and the splitting of your fighter force between two models (just for a type of job that's more troublesome in the country's politics & culture anyway).

However, none of the arguments in favor of Canook Eagles matter in real life because of a twist of recent Canook politics: those who oppose F-35 have proposed no alternative at all, not even the opening of a competition or analysis project to determine what alternative would be best, so the choice isn't "F-35 or something else"; it's "F-35 or nothing at all". And that's the way they want it, because to F-35 opponents in Canada, it's never been about what plane is best for the job; it's always been about pacifist objection to the job itself.


Actually I find that much of the argumentation for an alternative glosses over the very real deficiencies of the competitors. Almost all of the alternatives are not well suited for Canada's long term defence needs, particularly the Super Hornet and the Gripen. I think the F-15 could do much of what Canada needs, but as pushoksti points out, it costs more and it would not provide the same level of domestic offsets as the JSF.

RE: Aircraft RCS Comparison Chart

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 06:49
by alloycowboy
So the F-15 has a radar cross section (RCS) equivilent to a barn door.


Image

Re: Aircraft RCS Comparison Chart

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 22:25
by m
alloycowboy wrote:Just to be sure everyone understands why Canada is not considering the F-15 lets look at this aircraft Radar Cross section Chart shall we:


Image



Alloycowboy. Am I correct, these figures are without extra tanks, armament etc?

RE: Re: Aircraft RCS Comparison Chart

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 22:33
by SpudmanWP
Yes, otherwise known as a "clean" config.

RE: Re: Aircraft RCS Comparison Chart

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 22:49
by m
Another one: Radar Cross Section

Type: RCS (m2) RCS (dB)

automobile: 100 20
B-52: 100
B-1(A/B): 10
F-15: 25
Su-27: 15

cabin cruiser: 10 10

Su-MKI: 4
Mig-21: 3
F-16: 5

F-16C: 1.2
man: 1 0
F-18: 1
Rafale: 1
B-2: 0.75 ?
Typhoon: 0.5
Tomahawk SLCM: 0.5

B-2: 0.1 ?
A-12/SR-71: 0.01 (22 in2)
bird: 0.01 -20

F-35 / JSF: 0.005 -30
F-117: 0.003
insect: 0.001 -30
F-22: 0.0001 -40
B-2: 0.0001 -40

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ft-rcs.htm

RE: Re: Aircraft RCS Comparison Chart

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2011, 23:23
by alloycowboy
@M...... Why do they have the B2 three times in the data chart?

Re: RE: Re: Aircraft RCS Comparison Chart

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 00:22
by m
alloycowboy wrote:@M...... Why do they have the B2 three times in the data chart?


Alloycowboy. I really have no idea. Don't tknow this list is reliable? May be some experts can tell?

RE: Re: Aircraft RCS Comparison Chart

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 00:23
by spazsinbad
At top of page 'alloycowboy' posted a graphic about RCS. This graphic [http://www.cdfai.org/images/DispatchFall2001LerheTable.jpg] with a good read about F-35 may be found here:

http://f-35-update.blogspot.com/2011/11 ... -some.html

Which in turn has come from a more readable PDF here:

http://www.cdfai.org/newsletters/Dispat ... 202011.pdf (0.6Mb)

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 00:27
by maus92
[quote="architect"]Why not just to buy 24 F-35 and 60 Super Hornets, Silent Eagles or even the latest F-16 with reliable engines, very good capabilities and great range?
We can use the F-35 to suppress radars, communications centers or airplanes in the ground. The other airplanes could be used to patrol missions or day 2 of war, and even to air superiority. /quote]

A sensible plan, and this is one of the scenarios currently under discussion.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 16:05
by luke_sandoz
"Why not just to buy 24 F-35 and 60 Super Hornets, Silent Eagles or even the latest F-16 with reliable engines, very good capabilities and great range? "

two sets of maintenance, parts, training and logistics is the reason.

Canada should have at least two dedicated Air Defense squadrons - I would get Eurofighters for them, but it ain't gonna happen.

The RCAF can afford only one do-it-all platform and that means the F-35 . . nothing else comes close if you need one aircraft that can be in service for 40 years.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 18:44
by alloycowboy
luke_sandoz wrote:"Why not just to buy 24 F-35 and 60 Super Hornets, Silent Eagles or even the latest F-16 with reliable engines, very good capabilities and great range? "

two sets of maintenance, parts, training and logistics is the reason.

Canada should have at least two dedicated Air Defense squadrons - I would get Eurofighters for them, but it ain't gonna happen.

The RCAF can afford only one do-it-all platform and that means the F-35 . . nothing else comes close if you need one aircraft that can be in service for 40 years.



@ Sandoz...... Engine reliabilty isn't really an issue with an engine health monitoring system. For instance on the CFM-56 engines that they use on the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 CFMI states that there is only one in-flight shutdown every 333,333 hours.

As for the Eurofighter it has antiquated avionics. The best technology of the late 80's early 90's. Compare the Eurofighter to the F-35 ultra clean cockpit.

Image


Image

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 18:57
by madrat
What happens when the screen loses a row or column of pixels?

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 19:05
by SpudmanWP
Functions can be moved around the screen (eg they have no perm location and can be customized). The 8x20 display is actually made up of two 8x10 located side-by-side. If there is a serious problem with one, the functions can route to the other.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 19:23
by geogen
pushoksti wrote:
delvo wrote:A That calls for lots of range and speed, both of which an F-15 delivers more of for a lower price.


The Flyaway cost a new Strike Eagle is more than a new JSF.


I'm going to agree with many of delvo's arguments there, 'if' an alternative is warranted in the near-term for RCAF's replacement program. In such case, a modern F-15E+ class (which will hopefully still be a option a year from now in terms of the line being open for orders) would arguably be the closest alternative to the F-35 in a broad strategic and capabilities sense. That is, the F-15E+ is and would be far more comparable to the F-35 than the Super Hornet.

Price comparison wise? For an initial FY14 order?? I'm not convinced with that claim..

Who knows for sure, Canada could need an IMF loan if they want to procure just 50x F-35A, too.

There's unfortunately some confusion at large on F-35's 'affordable' Procurement being floated around in Canadian media though, with respect to RCAF's potential acquisition. There would unfortunately be no evidence to support a $65m or $75m F-35 Procurement tag for an FY14 order (not even for the REC flyaway portion), let alone promise that the currently expected FY14 and on production rates and hence unit cost estimates will remain intact. Moreover, given the unfolding uncertainties with future buy rates and FRP commencement and even what an FRP will look like by FY17, or FY18, etc, reality will dictate that 'Total Procurement Cost' estimates will be revised accordingly. And some would assess a significant revision to the upside at that, especially when taking into account the already miscalculated and underestimated cost estimate increases to date. Expect some major surprises cost-wise, re F-35 procurement.

My guess would be RCAF procuring 40, maybe 45x F-35, staying the course. RCAF could however supplement with VLO UCAV for first-day deterrence and long-range patrol. It's reasonable to keep a flexible next-gen recapitalization strategy when emerging capabilities are just around the corner.

With some creative, alternative 'financing' though, perhaps the F-35 portion could be upped back to the 60-65 level.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 20:49
by pushoksti
geogen wrote:My guess would be RCAF procuring 40, maybe 45x F-35


Not enough to sustain operational tempo. Hell, 65 won't be enough.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 22:24
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:
pushoksti wrote:
delvo wrote:A That calls for lots of range and speed, both of which an F-15 delivers more of for a lower price.


The Flyaway cost a new Strike Eagle is more than a new JSF.


I'm going to agree with many of delvo's arguments there, 'if' an alternative is warranted in the near-term for RCAF's replacement program. In such case, a modern F-15E+ class (which will hopefully still be a option a year from now in terms of the line being open for orders) would arguably be the closest alternative to the F-35 in a broad strategic and capabilities sense. That is, the F-15E+ is and would be far more comparable to the F-35 than the Super Hornet.

Price comparison wise? For an initial FY14 order?? I'm not convinced with that claim..

Who knows for sure, Canada could need an IMF loan if they want to procure just 50x F-35A, too.

There's unfortunately some confusion at large on F-35's 'affordable' Procurement being floated around in Canadian media though, with respect to RCAF's potential acquisition. There would unfortunately be no evidence to support a $65m or $75m F-35 Procurement tag for an FY14 order (not even for the REC flyaway portion), let alone promise that the currently expected FY14 and on production rates and hence unit cost estimates will remain intact. Moreover, given the unfolding uncertainties with future buy rates and FRP commencement and even what an FRP will look like by FY17, or FY18, etc, reality will dictate that 'Total Procurement Cost' estimates will be revised accordingly.


No, the unit costs have always been the average for the entire buy. I doubt the Canadian media would even care about that distinction; almost every single defence journalist has the knives out for the program.

geogen wrote:And some would assess a significant revision to the upside at that, especially when taking into account the already miscalculated and underestimated cost estimate increases to date. Expect some major surprises cost-wise, re F-35 procurement.


Yadayadayada. No real analysis from you, just "its going to be ALOT WORSE."

Honestly Geogen, your baseless assertions are starting to get tiresome. Oh look, one more:


geogen wrote:My guess would be RCAF procuring 40, maybe 45x F-35, staying the course.


You have absolutely no basis whatsoever to make such a claim, and yet you do. Frankly, its more likely the Government will buy MORE F-35s given what's been said over the past week than buy less. Cost overruns? The government doesn't really care... see the Cyclones. The F-35 was the centerpiece of the Liberal and NDP attacks on the Conservatives for the past two elections. Somehow, they won an majority despite that. IF they have to spend even 100~200 million more... they will do it. It won't be nearly as bad as the money they poured into the Cyclone project.

geogen wrote: RCAF could however supplement with VLO UCAV for first-day deterrence and long-range patrol. It's reasonable to keep a flexible next-gen recapitalization strategy when emerging capabilities are just around the corner.


Oh really? With what platform? What experience does the RCAF have with UCAVs? Very very little. Its ludicrous to think that we will be seeing any UCAVs before the 2025 at the extreme earliest.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 22:33
by m
Geogen. I can be wrong, but as far as I see, pro or anti in Canada, some aspects, to some extend, are also relevant for Canada

Not always is realized, US taxpayers mainly did pay development costs of the F35.
In fact level partners will get a F35 - concerning these costs - cheap and not really have that much to complain.

Levelpartners invested in development, but don’t pay extra development costs when ordering the F35.
Even compared with level 1 (UK) and 2 partners, Canada will get the F35 in fact a lot cheaper than these levelpartners.
As well as for instance the Dutch will get the F35 cheaper than the UK probably will get.


In comparison: levelpartner 1 (UK), 2 (NL) and 3 (Canada)

Invested in development per F35: 65
o Canada invested $150 million: $2.3 million per F35 (65)
o Netherlands invested $800 million: $9.4 million (85), $12.3 million (65)
o UK invested $2.5 billion: $16.6 million (150), $18.1 million (138), $38.4 million (65)

Development costs Dutch, rated in 2011 dollars:
o The Dutch invested $800 million = €858 million in 2002
o €858 million = $1.18 billion (rate: 2011, nov. 6)
o Development costs per F35: $13.8 million (85), $18.1 million (65)

* How much will be paid by the industry or taxpayers are national agreements and will differ by country


Dropping out and ordering another jet

Although costs will be lower for Canada, as an example, a comparison when dropping out and how these costs will influence ordering another jet type, as well as will influence the industrial factor:

Dutch National Audit Office (Rekenkamer) came with these figures:
o Costs fully leaving the F35 project: €872.8 million (2009) = $1.2 billion (Rate: 5 nov 2011)
o Total Dutch investment, till so far: ± €1.58 billion = US $2.18 billion
o “ Full” drop out: Less royalties (Dutch: 1,74% / +$200,000 per F35, not lvelpartners)
o FMS (when the F35 on the shelf): 4.4747% per F35, royalties included

- In case another jet: development and production costs will have to be paid as well for another jet type
- The invested F35 money will have been lost and will lower the budget for another jet
- A percentage FMS costs in case of another jet
- The two ordered F35’s will have to be sold (second hand)
- Expected, within a few years, Dutch industry will hardly play any role in the F35 project anymore


A full drop out will not be that easy for levelpartners:

Signed MOU, all partners, updated 2010

PRODUCTION, SUSTAINMENT, AND FOLLOW-ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/documents/ ... 4_2010.PDF

19.4 Any Participant may withdraw from this MOU upon 90 days written notification of its intent to withdraw to the other Participants. Such notice will be the subject of immediate consultation by the JESB to decide upon the appropriate course of action. In the event of such withdrawal, the following rules apply:

19.4.1 The withdrawing Participant will continue participation, financial or otherwise, up to the effective date of withdrawal.

19.4.2 In accordance with paragraph 5.13 of Section V (Financial Provisions), if a Participant’s withdrawal occurs prior to production Line Shutdown, the withdrawing Participant will pay its share of the Line Shutdown costs upon its withdrawal. However, if a Participant withdraws

19.10 This MOU will remain in effect for forty-five (45) years, and may be extended by the written concurrence of the Participants.

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2011, 22:38
by m
Concerning The Netherlands

The government assured the US this year they will stay in the F35 project

The next government has to the decide what the “ Total budget” will be, as well as the “ Total number” F35’s will be ordered.

Invested till so far ±€1.58 billion (=$2.18 billion). This year the government declared another
€4.5 billion (=$6.2 billion) will be reserved for ordering the F35 (Buying dollars?)

Till that time the government will still use, coming years, 85 as a official number for measuring how many F35’s can be bought and what budget will be needed. Any number, ordering F35’s, could not be answered by the government to Members of Parliament, because the total budget, ordering the F35 or any other decision concerns the next government. (Till 2014: From the western front no news)

Although it could have seemed (internationally) last years it was a main issue in the Netherlands, this was not really the case. The really main issue was in 2006.
How much of an issue it is now? The last government did spend only a few lines on the F35, forming the new government (2010).
Buying a second F35 or not this year, was nothing more than a political (voter) fight. Every political party knew there was a commitment buying a second F35 (IOT&E phase).
After this incident the F35 hardly got any attention anymore.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 02:03
by geogen
To m:

Thanks for your detailed comments, that was some serious effort and analysis made there.... My response would be that we need to differentiate between 'development' costs and actual unit 'Procurement' costs. One can argue that development costs can be written off. Sunk costs, as we say in english. With respect to what a foreign - or US - customer has to pay to BUY an F-35 is a totally separate issue though and is referred to as a total Unit Procurement cost as a baseline expense. Then, add to this Procurement cost whichever extra long-term packages and extra equipment packages and extra weapons + infrastructure + MILCON, yadayadayada package a customer wishes to include as extra cost to the baseline Procurement.

However, the total unit 'Procurement' price paid by foreign customers is an interesting point for further investigation I think. Note various customers stating their respective desire to buy from USAF contracts? What I read from this, is the possibility that likely procurement cost overruns will be evenly split between US govt and LM. If this is true, then it raises an interesting possibility that foreign customers might be able to buy an F-35 at a designated price also quoted to the USAF, but when cost overruns kick in, a foreign customer buying direct from the US Air Force might not have to pay for the cost increase. That share would might be covered by the USG + LM?

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 02:21
by bumtish
geogen wrote:If this is true, then it raises an interesting possibility that foreign customers might be able to buy an F-35 at a designated price also quoted to the USAF, but when cost overruns kick in, a foreign customer buying direct from the US Air Force might not have to pay for the cost increase. That share would might be covered by the USG + LM?


I take it you are thinking of "concurrency type" cost overruns? Since no foreign customer can buy directly from a US vendor and only through DoD, this would be an issue for any export sale of any defence product, thus practices should be in place. I have not heard that it is practice for the DoD to pick up the bill for cost overruns for the export customer!

Anyhoo, a F-15K costs $125M in todays dollars and a lrip-4-5 F-35A is the same ($126, including engines). The curves are crossing today. At a build rate of 70/yr it should hit $90M. 65-75 is not impossible at all. F-35A is just cheaper, no contest.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 02:31
by geogen
hb, I truly respect whomever you are in your profession and in your mission. I won't ask if it's an official position statement, or just your informed opinions.

I simply disagree with your assessments however.

If you are claiming that the supposed $65-$75m quoted Procurement cost (REC flyaway, not Total Unit Procurement Cost) is an average for Canada... and Canada is buying her initial lot in FY14 which will be MUCH higher than $65-$75m (recurring flyaway) per unit... then one can deduce that later Canadian purchases will come in MUCH lower than $65-$75m per unit to average out. That is impossible! Do the math, sir. You are implying that a later year buy in FY18 would be $50m? I'm sorry, but that is the very flawed reasoning behind this entire marketed 'average cost' issue to begin with.

Regarding Canada and potential future UCAV procurement... why not? Why punch the throttle full speed now on a fixed next-gen recapitalization plan, when so much additional 'next-gen' 'game-changing' technology will be on the market in just 10 years from now? Why rush it, when Canada could have a more capable and cost-effective mix of capabilities over the Life Cycle Cost? And regarding the claim: UCAV will not be a viable platform by 2025?? Do you realize that the US will not likely be the first military to operate a LO UCAV and before 2020? Sputnik moment perhaps? I'm sorry but such assumptions are indicative of the serious miscalculations on par with those made back in 2005 thinking that F-35 would be affordable, mature and IOC by 2012-2014.

Believe me, I'm probably one of the few critics you'll ever exchange debates with that is actually wanting the F-35 to succeed. I've given proposals on how both US and Partners can actually afford the F-35 during LRIP and increase the Program's chances of sustainability and success. I have not heard one proposal by anyone on this site to come up with a proposal to better the chances of F-35s sustainability or improved affordability during the most vulnerable stages of the Program. How about trying to replace some group-think, with some Think-tank. You might just come out the other side with a better outcome. Respects-

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 03:00
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:To m:

Thanks for your detailed comments, that was some serious effort and analysis made there.... My response would be that we need to differentiate between 'development' costs and actual unit 'Procurement' costs. One can argue that development costs can be written off. Sunk costs, as we say in english. With respect to what a foreign - or US - customer has to pay to BUY an F-35 is a totally separate issue though and is referred to as a total Unit Procurement cost as a baseline expense.


As I've explained to you in depth before, its not total unit procurement as the baseline expense, as those costs do not scale properly and may not be representative of Canada's costs.

You must start with the REC, and then figure out the extra expenses on top of that SPECIFIC to the number of aircraft purchased and their operational tempo. For example Canada may buy 85 aircraft, but with only 60 or even 40 operational at any one time. The rest may sit as an attrition reserve or maintained at a lower status than alert aircraft. Thus it does not need the MILCON/Training/Support package for 65 aircraft, rather the number actually in service and the level they will be employed. This is why I've been telling you that PUC is not an illustrative figure and needs to be separated out and discussed separately. Technically, Canada could have a PUC of the REC + the rental space of a warehouse in Cold Lake if it just stored the fighter and never used it. Then again if utilized at a higher operational tempo than US fighters, it could have a higher PUC. Its really dependent on the Canadian context. This is what you continually fail to grasp when you argue for transferring the US PUC to the CAnadian context.



geogen wrote:However, the total unit 'Procurement' price paid by foreign customers is an interesting point for further investigation I think. Note various customers stating their respective desire to buy from USAF contracts? What I read from this, is the possibility that likely procurement cost overruns will be evenly split between US govt and LM. If this is true, then it raises an interesting possibility that foreign customers might be able to buy an F-35 at a designated price also quoted to the USAF, but when cost overruns kick in, a foreign customer buying direct from the US Air Force might not have to pay for the cost increase. That share would might be covered by the USG + LM?


Partner Companies do not buy their fighters from the USAF; they buy them directly from the LM as part of the MOU agreement. FMS however would go through that route.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 03:04
by bumtish
hb_pencil wrote:Partner Companies do not buy their fighters from the USAF; they buy them directly from the LM as part of the MOU agreement. FMS however would go through that route.


Huh? I was of the definite impression that partner buys went through DoD, i.e. negotiated as part of the USAF/USN contract, though not as FMS.

Do you know of any reading material on this? (or care to elaborate?)

Gun Boat Diplomacy

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 03:08
by alloycowboy
Geogen...... Canada can afford to spend $134.4 million per airplane which is what you get when you divide 9 billion by 65 aircraft. Also why buy UCAV's when you can use satellites? UCAV's are great for filling in the information Gaps where you don't have Satellite coverage like Afganistan. Also contrary to popular belief the F-35 is not as at risk as many defense analysts would have you believe. In fact a lot of things in the US defense budget would be cut first before the F-35 because with out the F-35 the United States looses its ability to use Gun Boat Dipomacy. See wiki on Gunboat Diplomacy:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy


Image

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 03:33
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:hb, I truly respect whomever you are in your profession and in your mission. I won't ask if it's an official position statement, or just your informed opinions.

I simply disagree with your assessments however.

If you are claiming that the supposed $65-$75m quoted Procurement cost (REC flyaway, not Total Unit Procurement Cost) is an average for Canada... and Canada is buying her initial lot in FY14 which will be MUCH higher than $65-$75m (recurring flyaway) per unit... then one can deduce that later Canadian purchases will come in MUCH lower than $65-$75m per unit to average out. That is impossible! Do the math, sir. You are implying that a later year buy in FY18 would be $50m? I'm sorry, but that is the very flawed reasoning behind this entire marketed 'average cost' issue to begin with.


Canada's purchase schedule starts in 2016, not 2014. Furthermore the schedule will likely be 1, 3, 9, 13, 13, 13, 13 according to the department. Currently I've estimated the 2016 unit cost (using a revised learning curve due to LRIP cuts) at about $80~85 million a copy. This should drop to $80~$75 million by 2018 or 19, when full production commences, which is within the Government's estimates.

So as you can see, the effects of the 2016~2017 lots being higher than expected is minimal as they represent less than 10% of the entire buy. If the 2019 lot are around $75 million, then they will average out the higher costs of the few earlier aircraft. (the Estimated REC for Canada is 75~80 Million)

Furthermore Canada could decide to back end the production buys to ensure they avoid the effects of the LRIP cutbacks too.


geogen wrote:Regarding Canada and potential future UCAV procurement... why not? Why punch the throttle full speed now on a fixed next-gen recapitalization plan, when so much additional 'next-gen' 'game-changing' technology will be on the market in just 10 years from now? Why rush it, when Canada could have a more capable and cost-effective mix of capabilities over the Life Cycle Cost? And regarding the claim: UCAV will not be a viable platform by 2025?? Do you realize that the US will not likely be the first military to operate a LO UCAV and before 2020? Sputnik moment perhaps? I'm sorry but such assumptions are indicative of the serious miscalculations on par with those made back in 2005 thinking that F-35 would be affordable, mature and IOC by 2012-2014.


Why not? The institutional groundwork isn't there, the organizational interest isn't there, and the political capital isn't there. I actually have some insight into the CF's future force concepts thinking. Saying "why not?" is to me akin to saying why can't the US congress just agree increase the top end tax rate by 10% to cut its budget deficit or change medicare and social security into a voucher system. Its out of the realm of possibility.

geogen wrote:Believe me, I'm probably one of the few critics you'll ever exchange debates with that is actually wanting the F-35 to succeed. I've given proposals on how both US and Partners can actually afford the F-35 during LRIP and increase the Program's chances of sustainability and success. I have not heard one proposal by anyone on this site to come up with a proposal to better the chances of F-35s sustainability or improved affordability during the most vulnerable stages of the Program. How about trying to replace some group-think, with some Think-tank. You might just come out the other side with a better outcome. Respects-


I'm going to be absolutely blunt here. I find your posting often poorly resourced and misleading. I thank you for being calm in your tone and tenor. However there have been several instances that you have been proved wrong or questioned(F-15E Costs, PUC vs REC, or stating higher costs estimates with no grounding for example), yet you just blindly ignore others arguments and continue to argue something incorrect. Its dismaying to say the least.

I'm hardly a blind supporter the program, though its hard to seem unbiased when faced with some of the arguments presented on here. I really am trying to find the most accurate understanding of program. Certainly I think DND's figures are more credible than most figures put out there... but I think that at this point DND is at the limit of their estimates and it may even exceed them once the LRIP 4 and 5 contracts are run to completion. However, I also have the experience to understand that defence projects have cost overruns and almost always exceed their goals. Furthermore other programs are no better.... the F-15E/SE is certainly not cheaper than the F-35 nor are its capabilities that superior for the RCAF's defence needs.

All of this won't matter however as the government has staked its political capital on this program and will see it through.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 04:01
by hb_pencil
bumtish wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:Partner Companies do not buy their fighters from the USAF; they buy them directly from the LM as part of the MOU agreement. FMS however would go through that route.


Huh? I was of the definite impression that partner buys went through DoD, i.e. negotiated as part of the USAF/USN contract, though not as FMS.

Do you know of any reading material on this? (or care to elaborate?)


You're possibly right on the first part (partner buys through DoD), but possibly not on the second (as part of the USAF/USN contract)

My reading is based on the MOU and bits and pieces of various statements and discussions I have. I should be a bit more exact. Buying "from the USAF" to me means going the FMS, which is not how it works. Partner countries buy through the Program office and the JSF Executive Steering Board. This is the JESB's responsibilities as stated in the MOU.

4.4.2 Approving JSF PEO-recommended annual or multiyear Consolidated Procurement Requests (CPRs) for JSF Air System articles and services.

Now this might be a technicality, but that sounds to me as if the contracts are actually separately signed by the partner countries and the contractor, then consolidated as an single order. That would make sense, Canada, and other partners have different versions of their fighters which would need to be constructed differently (Adding a probe and drogue system to a F-35A for example.) Also the entire structure as outlined by the MOU suggests that the partners are basically equal though the US runs the program for them.



That's just my reading of it... I don't have definite proof of how it works in practice (its actual effects are minimal how the program is run.)

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 04:19
by bumtish
Calculated REC from the 2010 SAR to illustrate effects of learning curve and production rates.

Code: Select all
year   Qty   BY2002$M   REC$M
2007   2   411.6   205.8
2008   6   949.2   158.2
2009   7   988.2   141.2
2010   10   1229.7   123.0
2011   22   2383.4   108.3
2012   19   1941.5   102.2
2013   24   2137.8   89.1
2014   40   3023   75.6
2015   50   3502   70.0
2016   70   4260.9   60.9
2017   80   5041.8   63.0
2018   80   4730.7   59.1
2019   80   4650.1   58.1
2020   80   4624   57.8
2021   80   4648.3   58.1
2022   80   4700.4   58.8
2023   80   4698.8   58.7
2024   80   4741.1   59.3
2025   80   4745.4   59.3
2026   80   4742.6   59.3
2027   80   4842.4   60.5
2028   80   4957   62.0
2029   80   4993.3   62.4
2030   80   5031.1   62.9
2031   80   5068.6   63.4
2032   80   5111.1   63.9
2033   80   5152.4   64.4
2034   80   5154.6   64.4
2035   73   4327.1   59.3


http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR.pdf

From 2016 onwards the REC BY$2002 doesn't change much - it flatlines. I can't find the official defence inflation rates (which the USGov is obliged to use) to convert to CY2008 or CY2011, the former the year of the famous $65M REC quote, however using 2.5% pro annum it tracks between $65-70M REC CY2008, or $72-77M Total Flyaway. It seems lrip-5 is to be cut so crudely, the bottom price will be from 2017 onwards.

But it is obvious that partner cost is not dependent on total production, but on when the order is placed.

hb_pencil,

Thanks, I'll be sharp the next time I read material on this topic. However, on Geogens question - the US DoD are not allowed to subsidize exports, so this detail may be moot anyway.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 04:31
by hb_pencil
bumtish wrote:Calculated REC from the 2010 SAR to illustrate effects of learning curve and production rates.

http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR.pdf

From 2016 onwards the REC BY$2002 doesn't change much - it flatlines. I can't find the corresponding defence inflation rates to convert to CY2008 or CY2011, the former the year of the famous $65M REC quote, however using 2.5% pro annum it tracks between $65-70M REC CY2008, or $72-77M Total Flyaway. It seems lrip-5 is to be cut so crudely, the bottom price will be from 2017 onwards.


Just google up westegg. They use the US gov's Labour statistics numbers which I believe are the official figures. Its been a little while since I did this but I think these are FY2002. Canadian figures are FY2008... If I remember correctly. Also these costs are estimated using common learning curve formulas (when I did the calcs originally they tracked almost perfectly.) Learning curves and prices can be affected by a lot of things, so the SAR estimates will not reflect reality. I have some guesses how the costs will end up based on some of the information out there. I suspect that lots after LRIP 5 is where the costs get driven down as risk sharing among subcontractors comes into effect, design maturity occurs and production rates start ramping up. I don't think however they will reach the bottom until 2018 or 2019 due to LRIP cutbacks.


bumtish wrote:hb_pencil,

Thanks, I'll be sharp the next time I read material on this topic. However, on Geogens question - the US DoD are not allowed to subsidize exports, so this detail may be moot anyway.


Its actually the opposite problem: DoD can drive up the costs of a purchase through FMS. The structure of the JSF program made it that all the countries are partners and bought their units at the same cost as the USAF.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 06:20
by Conan
hb_pencil wrote:
geogen wrote:All of this won't matter however as the government has staked its political capital on this program and will see it through.


Does this page have a like button? Because I'd press it when I see quotes like this.

This is the one issue the critics (and once again I'm referring to those vocal Australian critics) have demonstrated time and time again that they do not adequately comprehend and will never overcome.

The partner nations, politically and defence-wise support the F-35. Not blindly, but in the full knowledge (which the critics don't have) that it will do what they want it to do.

Most recognise that the F-35 is not perfect for every single possible contingency but unlike the slack cut for most other programs, the critics expect it to be perfect in every role or it's labelled a "failure".

And it will be cheaper than most. If countries had the budget available, sure they could build supercruising LO F-15's armed with air launched ESSM's and 2000+ T/R module AESA radars and they'd probably be absolutely awesome air to air machines.

But they don't. They have the budget and supporting resources to introduce a single fighter type. Some might look at adding very small numbers of UCAV's to expand their capabilities in years to come. They are unlikely to do so at the expense of manned fighter capability for decades yet however...

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 10:00
by geogen
bumtish:

Re your F-15K price quote of $125m?? Can you please list a source for that estimate? That's the most definitive price I've seen. And as usual, please specify... which price is this exactly? The Weapon system cost? The Total Flyaway? The REC flyaway? Thanks in advance. (note: I would quit all support for an F-15E procurement if it can be verified that an F-15K/F-15SG's REC flyaway was as much as LRIP-4's REC - I'm thinking more likely that would be the current Total Flyaway, or the initial Weapon sys cost from early 2000s).

Re: Partner purchases through the USAF, I can't find it the press release at the moment but recall reading of at least one Partner nation wanting to buy from USAF lots, at least during LRIP, it might have been RNLAF? That was the context in which the conjecture was made and if the case, that was the point which raised the question... 'who would pay the difference in such an arrangement if the DoD and Contractor were splitting F-35 cost overruns?'

Regarding that 2010 SAR sheet listing REC 'estimates'... we can already pretty much throw that SAR out the window as just about all estimates 'pre-Summer of 2010', are obsolete going forward. So unfortunately, those are old, pre-conceived Schedule and price estimates which will continue to see revisions in both orders and prices over the duration.

For one thing, even 2012's REC cost quoted there is a little shy of the likely final REC flyaway portion of the Total Procurement. Procurement costs have been HIGHER than originally estimated in 2008. If anything I've been conservative in my estimates.

I recall back in 2010 when awaiting Lot-4's released 'fixed + incentive' revision, I was stating $200m as the eventual PUC. Man, the heck I caught here for even speculating such an absurd and outrageous unit cost. Well, Lot 4's latest official PUC estimate is for over $220m!

For FY14? Expect reduced orders and substantially higher than estimated costs, probably still over $100m for REC. FRP? The whole definition of FRP will be fundamentally changed very soon, watch. Notional FRP, under austere budget environments going forward, will unfortunately be construed very differently than any current expectation is still promoting. Expect substantial revisions to both long-term total buys, annual rates by 2013

It's about acknowledging that the original and current estimates for schedule and price going forward are simply unsustainable and will not be hit - not on the front-end, not on the back-end... nada. Very unfortunate indeed, but it should be evident to any critical analysis - that's where I'm critical... on officials and policymakers missing it so bad and making policy based on miscalculated expectations.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 10:19
by geogen
To hb:

Sir, I appreciate you're working knowledge, competency and your professionalism. But you'll just have to trust geogen on this one... estimates from the past have been completely obliterated and proven widely miscalculated. If anything so far, I've been conservative in my assessments - so yes, I've been wrong too. :(

Regarding 'being proven right, or wrong', it can be assured that nobody bats a 1000 in accuracy on such discussions, well, maybe Spazs does, but I can hold my own and thank you and have a pretty keen understanding of the relevance to US appropriations of the PUC over the URF. Beyond that, we'll have to let history decide the rest as far as how closely the Program follows the current expectations.

I will suggest though, had Congress known back in 2008 what PUC costs would be for FY12 and the pertinent info we have today on the financial state, I can almost guarantee you the Program would have been cancelled by the end of that year.

Unfortunately, the current estimates and expectations are simply unsustainable under austere budgets not even beginning to take hold and as such the 'actual production and costs' will not look anywhere close to what they resemble on paper today and more so, compared to their respective original estimates.

Think about it: with a base budget of $530bn, the USAF is affording 18-22 jets. How many will AF be able to afford then, when the inflation adjusted base budget a few years out is under $500bn and not something like $650bn as was intended to be?? Now try to share budgets with Next-gen Bomber, Tanker replacement, legacy fleet (F-15/16) SLEP and upgrades, upgrades for F-22, increased maintenance for older legacy jets YoY, potential UCAV interest... :?

Speaking of which, and being serious, not jabbing at you... are there cost estimates for RCAF's upgrading and SLEP Programs required to sustain CF-18 until 2025 is it now? Have such budgets been funded and approved separate from the hornet replacement budget?

But with respect to the future CF-35, it must be understood that the current estimates for the 'REC' portion of Procurement will change according to organic Cost increases above current estimates as well as due to substantial reductions in total volume (less than 3,150) and annual buy rates (less than 180 +/- per yr FRP).

Very unfortunately and I truly wish it weren't the case... but there is just no evidence that I can see thus far to point at Procurement costs Canada is expecting. (be they REC flyaway or with rest of Procurement, ie non-recurring, ancillary, Peculiar ground support equipment for engine, airframe and avionics which are included in a procurement, tech pubs, or initial spares which come as part of a procurement).

Granted, Canada might very well separate out what's called the Integrated Logistical Support (ILS) portion of her aircraft Procurement which is normally included in the total Procurement Cost and add it to another cost line, I'll accept that. But truly, which other Procurement cost descriptions does Canada use other than the simplest REC? Is there some variation of Weapon system cost? Total Flyaway?

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 17:03
by hotrampphotography
geogen wrote:Speaking of which, and being serious, not jabbing at you... are there cost estimates for RCAF's upgrading and SLEP Programs required to sustain CF-18 until 2025 is it now? Have such budgets been funded and approved separate from the hornet replacement budget


For the record, in the post that I listed that information in, there were ZERO cost incursions for any potential upgrades as the upgrades are not necessary. The lifespan calculations were based on the upgrades performed through 2009 which will see some of the current fleet of Hornets - those procured in 1986 and later - to be able to remain in service until approximately 2025 as they will have their flying hours reduced as a result of the procurement of the F-35.

In all seriousness, I don't see why all of you decide to go around in circles about a per unit cost when the Government has allotted $9B to the purchase of 65 a/c + spares + weaponry + training. The cost per unit is a moot point.

As to those who think or believe that another airframe can meet our needs, even the PBO - the harshest critic of the program - admitted that the F-35 is the only plane that meets the criteria set out by the RCAF.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 17:21
by SpudmanWP
One thing to keep in mind is that the Canadian cost is in CY$2002 USD not BY$ USD. Given that, the quoted $75 is closer to $94 in 2014 and $100 in 2016.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 21:56
by markottawa
Follow the Canadian debate (and a lot more) at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog":
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?cat=20

Mark
Ottawa

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 22:48
by luke_sandoz
nice blog Mark . . seems to be at least one side of the Canadian debate, but it sure looks like you have it in for the F-35.

What's your beef with the plane, other than cost & sched ?

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 23:14
by markottawa
luke sandoz: Not much :D--other than our government's exceeding economy with the truth. Plus the RCAF is most unlikely to engage in "first day of war" attacks through and against heavy and effective air defences, the F-35's main rationale; and stealth is unnecessary for the continental air defence mission (our fighters' first priority)--incoming bombers don't use radar to detect approaching fighters as it would give their own position away.

And I do give the government's (pathetic) position in many posts, e.g. second comment here,
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=590

and first comment here:
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=583

Mark
Ottawa

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 23:27
by geogen
Hotrampphoto:

Thanks for that info and reply. Understand, I'm only interested in trying to piece together RCAF's recap puzzle, as it has eluded me on some of these finer points and a few things just didn't seem to add up. I guess I'll just put a potential question mark on not seeing a requirement for further avionics upgrades for those birds now slated to operate until 2025. It would just seem that there might be some form of unintended modernization-gap perhaps between the 2016-2021 time frame given that the fleet was originally intended to be fully recapitalized by then?

(note: I'm assessing the buy year 2018 to include 9 units delivered in 2020 if correct(?) would form part of the first IOC unit by 2021?)

Regarding the 'Unit price' issue, I'm only 'going around in circles on it' :doh: because it's brought up all the time by the contractor as an estimated $65-$75m per unit jet for sale which, I'm sorry Spud, but I'll have to borrow your input there, would seem to be a bit misleading, given it might be closer to a $100m estimate in TY dollars (REC Flyaway). wouldn't you agree? Which could lead into a follow up query, if the supposed $9Bn Procurement budget is also in 2002 dollars? Or in 2011 dollars, or Then Year dollars, etc?

So for discussion purposes let's crunch some numbers... a best case REC flyaway (assuming few reductions in annual orders by the 2017-2018 FRP time frame) could be about $100m... add about 20% to give the Total flyaway at around $120... add for example only - about $11m for PGSE equipment, Peculiar Training equipment and tech pubs... and lastly say about $9m for initial spares? That would give a unit procurement of about $140m ea, assuming that the typically included ILS portion of procurement at perhaps $5mil per jet would be added to another line item expense in Canadian accounting practice. So Total conjecture as the costs would end up being priced in somewhere, but let's call it roughly $140m for Canadian Procurement sake, given that the officially 'estimated' costs are spot on going forward, and taking into account minimal changes to buy rates under FRP.

Well how bout it, forget a hundred mil, let's call that best estimate an even $9bn in 2016 dollars? But now, is that accurate info really as stated, regarding 'spares, training and weapons' also being included in the $9bn? Spares meaning longer-term spares in addition to the initial included in typical procurement/delivery? And Training in meaning multi-year pilot/crew training ? Weapons meaning war stock, or just initial AAM loadout?

I guess the open argument could honestly and fairly be debated then... whether accurate or inaccurate, I'd just have to support the notion that the $9bn price tag is definitely debatable especially when considering variables which might indeed alter pricing.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 23:45
by spazsinbad
geogen highlights (perhaps unintentionally) some 'peculiarities' about the F-35 training system and publications "...Peculiar Training equipment and tech pubs..."

There are stories (don't believe any have made it so far to this forum) out there about whether or not Canadian F-35A pilots/maintainers will train in FLA or not (no brainer eh). Yes they will have training equipment/simulators in CanukLand as highlighted about USMC F-35 new hangars & stuff recently.

I would suggest that most 'tech pubs' will be computer based for easy amendment etc. Not much cost there (compared to the mountains of paper publication pages/manuals in the past) methinks.
_________________

Fighter pilots to train in U.S., say documents
Move raises questions about the future of CFB Cold Lake, Alberta
The Canadian Press Posted: Nov 4, 2011

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... ining.html

"...Defence Department documents show that all countries buying F-35s are expected to use a training centre that manufacturer Lockheed Martin has set up at Eglin Air Force Base.

The Defence Department insists no final decisions on training have been made.

However, Air Force briefings obtained by The Canadian Press suggest there may be no pilot training in Canada..."

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 23:52
by hb_pencil
hotrampphotography wrote:
geogen wrote:Speaking of which, and being serious, not jabbing at you... are there cost estimates for RCAF's upgrading and SLEP Programs required to sustain CF-18 until 2025 is it now? Have such budgets been funded and approved separate from the hornet replacement budget


For the record, in the post that I listed that information in, there were ZERO cost incursions for any potential upgrades as the upgrades are not necessary. The lifespan calculations were based on the upgrades performed through 2009 which will see some of the current fleet of Hornets - those procured in 1986 and later - to be able to remain in service until approximately 2025 as they will have their flying hours reduced as a result of the procurement of the F-35.


Yes; data from other programs suggest that you can just use the low usage airframes and extend their life. However Canada is already doing that to a certain extent to their current CF-18s.

hotrampphotography wrote:In all seriousness, I don't see why all of you decide to go around in circles about a per unit cost when the Government has allotted $9B to the purchase of 65 a/c + spares + weaponry + training. The cost per unit is a moot point.


Per unit cost is a very very important indicator for cost analysis. Its the basis or a key part of any estimate. You can extrapolate the costs of spares, support using it and a few other inputs.

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2011, 23:57
by velocityvector
markottawa: Carrier strike aircraft, ships and occupying land forces with SAMs all would use radar to detect and target approaching Canadian aircraft. Given prospective wars for natural resources, e.g., Falklands/Malvinas conflict, I urge you to take another look at a map of Canada and reconsider your view of Canada's continental air defense mission as you see it.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 01:06
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:To hb:

Sir, I appreciate you're working knowledge, competency and your professionalism. But you'll just have to trust geogen on this one... estimates from the past have been completely obliterated and proven widely miscalculated. If anything so far, I've been conservative in my assessments - so yes, I've been wrong too. :(

Regarding 'being proven right, or wrong', it can be assured that nobody bats a 1000 in accuracy on such discussions, well, maybe Spazs does, but I can hold my own and thank you and have a pretty keen understanding of the relevance to US appropriations of the PUC over the URF. Beyond that, we'll have to let history decide the rest as far as how closely the Program follows the current expectations.


You don't have estimates Geogen, at least not ones that would be recognized by any professional in this field. I wouldn't be able to stick anything you have provided here into a report and call it credible. As far as I can tell you "gut feeling" which is no different to me than going to a psychic and asking them what they think. The credibility of your assertions have already been questioned: In this very thread you claimed that Canada will buy less fighters on the VERY week that the CDS sat in front of a Parliamentary committee and hinted the opposite (and after RCAF documentation was released stating that planners want MORE aircraft.) That failure calls into question the entire credibility of your "guestimates."

Furthermore, stating that cost estimates have been blown apart does not mean your method of guestimates are any more right... they aren't. Part of my work involves understanding how events affect that learning curve. This was a program with ALOT of risk... particularly in avionics, an area that is notoriously riskier than other systems. That is partly where much of the large increases in program cost emerged from. Yet programs at this stage of development tend not to see major cost increases due to re-design. Two key parts of the airframe, the engine and structure are unlikely to see any major revisions and the physical avionics architecture seems to be stable.

geogen wrote:I will suggest though, had Congress known back in 2008 what PUC costs would be for FY12 and the pertinent info we have today on the financial state, I can almost guarantee you the Program would have been cancelled by the end of that year.

Unfortunately, the current estimates and expectations are simply unsustainable under austere budgets not even beginning to take hold and as such the 'actual production and costs' will not look anywhere close to what they resemble on paper today and more so, compared to their respective original estimates.

Think about it: with a base budget of $530bn, the USAF is affording 18-22 jets. How many will AF be able to afford then, when the inflation adjusted base budget a few years out is under $500bn and not something like $650bn as was intended to be?? Now try to share budgets with Next-gen Bomber, Tanker replacement, legacy fleet (F-15/16) SLEP and upgrades, upgrades for F-22, increased maintenance for older legacy jets YoY, potential UCAV interest... :?


Actually, I don't think the price has had that much of an effect. For a defense program the F-35 has pretty strong political support. Its alternate engine got more support than in Congress than the F-22. Sure Congress defunded LRIP Lots, but that was an easy target and would not affect the long term production costs. Congress really takes their cues from the Service Chiefs and other military personnel, and they are unanimous in their support. Even comments by Leon Panetta to the NY Times this weekend suggest that the very last thing he wants to do is to cut F-35 production. Of the priorities you're listing, the F-35 trumps almost every single one of those except maybe UAVs and air to air refueling.


geogen wrote:But with respect to the future CF-35, it must be understood that the current estimates for the 'REC' portion of Procurement will change according to organic Cost increases above current estimates as well as due to substantial reductions in total volume (less than 3,150) and annual buy rates (less than 180 +/- per yr FRP).



Oh would you give it up about the reductions in total volume? I've explained why it doesn't matter, and offered corroboration. However you haven't had an effective reply on this. Provide a real explanation or just stop repeating this falsehood. Its what I said before; misleading arguments and resistance to actually realizing when you are wrong.

Furthermore the government has a $5 million dollar buffer built into the REC costs. Thus Canada can have an average REC cost of $80 million, which I think is what it will be at.

geogen wrote:Very unfortunately and I truly wish it weren't the case... but there is just no evidence that I can see thus far to point at Procurement costs Canada is expecting. (be they REC flyaway or with rest of Procurement, ie non-recurring, ancillary, Peculiar ground support equipment for engine, airframe and avionics which are included in a procurement, tech pubs, or initial spares which come as part of a procurement).

Granted, Canada might very well separate out what's called the Integrated Logistical Support (ILS) portion of her aircraft Procurement which is normally included in the total Procurement Cost and add it to another cost line, I'll accept that. But truly, which other Procurement cost descriptions does Canada use other than the simplest REC? Is there some variation of Weapon system cost? Total Flyaway?


This is frustrating. I've posted the same link three times that separates all the costs and you fail to read it. For the last time:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro- ... on-eng.asp

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 01:29
by m
geogen wrote:To m:



Agree with you these costs have to be seen as different costs. Or, as you explained, sunk costs.
(Worth investigating, but a very difficult matter)
But one way or another, these costs still have to be paid by the industry, as well as by governments (taxpayers).
How many invested money will be paid by governments depends on percentage agreements with the industry.


Concerning my calculation development costs per country and numbers F35, this was just a view.

In stead of, based on ordered numbers by country, these costs for example can also be seen as invested money per F35, based on the total numbers F35 of the common project.

Just a “ fictive” number, making it easy. Production levelparners: 4000 F35:

o UK: $2.5 billion > $625,000 per F35
o Netherlands: $800 million > $200,000 per F35
o Netherlands: $1.18 billion > $295,000 per F35 ($800 million = €858 million > $1.18 billion, rate: 2011, nov. 6)
o Canada: $150 million > $37,500 per F35


FMS (Level partners don’t pay FMS)

FMS (when the F35 on the shelf): 4.4747% per F35, royalties included
Am I correct? Development costs to be paid, when on the shelf, by not level parters, in that case are within this % as royalties to partners?


URF and APUC & PAUC

Personally I got the impression PUC can hardly be used by other countries.
Not sure of Canada, while the situation of Canada differs, a close (also economical) American neighbor, as compared with for example European countries.

As also stated by the Dutch government, APUC (Average Procurement Unit Cost) and PAUC (Procurement Acquisition Unit Cost ) is not been used by the Dutch Government.
Because this concerns a common prize of all three types and mend for or in a specific (economical) US situation.

In the Netherlands mainly URF - Unit Recurring Flyaway - is or will be used. As far as I know, URF is specifically mend as costs of the “ basic - common - level partners” F35.
A stated by the Government, URF is the average prize of all CTOL F35’s to be produced (level partners)
As reported: URF in 2002 dollars

Concerning URF, in that case my interpretation would be, only basically the same F35 and thus also basically a same prize.


Canadian figures

I am not sure where you are right or wrong concerning Canadian figures, but there are some questions concerning Canadian figures.
This year the Dutch government did a request to Canada to explain their figures.
Have to search for what is/was not understood exactly by the government and the Dutch National Audit Office.


International cooperation between audit institutions

Since 2005 the supreme audit institutions (SAIs) of the countries participating in the JSF programme have held an annual conference.
The JSF SAI conference is intended to encourage the exchange of information
between audit institutions and identify topics for joint or individual audits.
The Netherlands Court of Audit was the initiator of this conference in 2005 and chair in 2005 and 2006.
The chair was held by the Norwegian SAI in 2007 and 2008, and the British SAI in 2009.

JSF SAI conference 2010

The sixth JSF SAI conference was held on 28 and 29 September 2010 and chaired by the Turkish audit institution.
Other participants were the audit institutions from Canada, Norway, Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands.
The American and Australian institutions did not attend. At the conference the participating audit institutions described the situation regarding participation in the JSF programme in their countries.

(2011: Chaired by Canada, sept.)



May be Canada has already audited replacement, but last year was not yet been done.

Quote: Report Dutch National Audit Office (2011, March)

The Canadian government stated on 16 July 2010 that Canada will procure 65 JSF aircraft of the CTOL variant.
The Canadian Air Force will bring the JSF aircraft into service from 2016 on.
However, the letter from the Minister of Defence of 7 January 2011 states that Canada has slowed down the orders (Ministry of Defence, 2011).

The Canadian SAI has not performed specific audits on the replacement of the current CF-18 Hornet.
The Canadian SAI is planning to perform an audit on the procurement of fighter aircraft

Report Monitoring the Replacement of the F-16 PDF, 1082 kB

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 01:30
by bumtish
Geogen,

F-15K cost. There is no definitive official unit cost. Here's the circumstances from the 2002 contract for 40 F-15K at $4.2B = $105M (CY2002) ea, and $130M ea (CY2011, westegg). The contract was split to Boeing for the air vehicles ($3.6B) the engines in a separate contract and radars, helmet-mounted sights, with some other, unrelated, items. You can find some of the avionics in this DSCA notification (40 radars, 60 helmet sights), which is only a part of the notification.

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/ ... 1korea.htm

It's probably possible to find the rest searching through FMS contracts awards and Boeing press releases to investors, but I'll be damned if I have the time to that! EDIT: A quick Google-foo on the KFX-2 and Singapore acquisitions suggest an 2011 F-15"E" UPC of c. $100M.

Korea runs their support and sustainment throught separate contracts.

In short, I submit that the $130M is an UPC - I shaved off $5M (initial spares, support) to compare to a F-35A Total Flyaway, you may disagree on this amount, but my point was that the unit cost curves are crossing.

As to the SAR - the learning curve models are widely used and considered a very reliable and established method. Of course there is variability from pace of ramp-up and rates, which you point out, however, this does not invalidate the principle and fidelity of the model. Cost variance is from a partner perspective mostly affected by ramp-up and currency exchange rates. What the model tells you, that despite the short-term fluctuations - outliers from external forcing (Ramp-up, concurrency blk1-bl3 fix) which you point to as proof, it will go down to the $60M REC, with more conservative $65M REC, both BY2002.

Post ramp-up and with 80/yr for USAF, 50/yr for USN and a minimum of 10-20 partner buys/yr at FRP, it is most likely to hit that mark. The model needs a rate of 140-150 to reach that goal. At this point, the REC/WSC(UPC is totally independent from concurrence type and other costs related to SDD/concurrency.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 01:51
by SpudmanWP
More clarification is apparently needed.

A. The Canadian CY2002 $75 quote is larger than LM's CY2010 $65 number for three main reasons:
..1. It is full Flyaway, not REC flyaway as in LM's number.
..2. It includes a 4% buffer that covers both the Blk4 and Blk5 upgrades
..3. It includes development and acquisition funds for both the P&D refueling and the Drag Chute options.

B. The last official DOC that I have seen says that Canada will plan on pilot training in Eglin.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 01:55
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:Hotrampphoto:

Thanks for that info and reply. Understand, I'm only interested in trying to piece together RCAF's recap puzzle, as it has eluded me on some of these finer points and a few things just didn't seem to add up. I guess I'll just put a potential question mark on not seeing a requirement for further avionics upgrades for those birds now slated to operate until 2025. It would just seem that there might be some form of unintended modernization-gap perhaps between the 2016-2021 time frame given that the fleet was originally intended to be fully recapitalized by then?

(note: I'm assessing the buy year 2018 to include 9 units delivered in 2020 if correct(?) would form part of the first IOC unit by 2021?)


No that is the delivery date.

geogen wrote:Regarding the 'Unit price' issue, I'm only 'going around in circles on it' :doh: because it's brought up all the time by the contractor as an estimated $65-$75m per unit jet for sale which, I'm sorry Spud, but I'll have to borrow your input there, would seem to be a bit misleading, given it might be closer to a $100m estimate in TY dollars (REC Flyaway). wouldn't you agree? Which could lead into a follow up query, if the supposed $9Bn Procurement budget is also in 2002 dollars? Or in 2011 dollars, or Then Year dollars, etc?

So for discussion purposes let's crunch some numbers... a best case REC flyaway (assuming few reductions in annual orders by the 2017-2018 FRP time frame) could be about $100m... add about 20% to give the Total flyaway at around $120..


No, that's not the "best case." That's a egregious worst case you're premising. Currently LRIP IV F-35A lots are approximately $125 million dollars with engine (111 million+14 for the engine). Its quite the claim that its not going to go down less than $25 million in the next four years, when we're at Low rate production and only producing 30 units vs 180 in six years time.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 02:09
by hb_pencil
SpudmanWP wrote:More clarification is apparently needed.

A. The Canadian CY2002 $75 quote is larger than LM's CY2010 $65 number for three main reasons:


Its in 2008 dollars, not 2002. US uses 2002 baseline, not Canada.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 02:20
by SpudmanWP
Sorce?

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 03:36
by hotrampphotography
hb_pencil wrote:Yes; data from other programs suggest that you can just use the low usage airframes and extend their life. However Canada is already doing that to a certain extent to their current CF-18s.


Respectfully Sir, I don’t think that I outlined what I was trying to explain to the best of my abilities.

The total number of CF-18’s that have had their centre barrel replaced – which number 40 of the existing 79 aircraft – were the ones that I’m suggesting will be in service until approximately 2025.

The calculation of the 2025 retirement date is based on an average lifespan of a CF-18 being 20 years and the centre barrel replacement adding 70% to the aircraft’s lifespan. Since the last batch of planes (unknown quantity) was upgraded in 2010, using the formula

Lifespan = 2010 + (20*0.70)

provides me with a retirement year of 2024. I added one additional year to account for lower flight times given the arrival of the CF-35.

I hope that helps everyone with where I’m coming up with my figures, and apologize for not being clearer in earlier discussions.

hb_pencil wrote:Per unit cost is a very very important indicator for cost analysis. Its the basis or a key part of any estimate. You can extrapolate the costs of spares, support using it and a few other inputs.


I agree with your observation, and we agree on the 2016 unit cost being $80-85M a copy which will drop to $80~$75 million by 2018 or 19, when full production commences as per the Government’s estimates. What bothers me the most are the people on this board who aren’t using logic in their number crunching…enough to give someone a headache.

markottawa wrote: Plus the RCAF is most unlikely to engage in "first day of war" attacks through and against heavy and effective air defences, the F-35's main rationale;


It won’t matter if Canada uses the a/c on the first day of a war or the 5th day of a war as we recently saw with our CF-18’s in Libya. The true first strike capability will always lie with countries like the US and the UK who will always use B-2’s and Tomahawks to take out those radar installations and heavy and effective air defences.

The main rationale behind the F-35 was to replace a wide range of existing fighter, strike, and ground attack aircraft. Namely, the F-16, A-10, F/A-18, AV8B, and RAF Harrier GR7 and 9’s. You state that the RCAF isn’t likely to engage in first day of war attacks, and you’re right. One only needs to look at the countries which are involved in the JSF project to determine that only 2 have the capabilities to be involved in first day of war attacks – the USA and the UK. Countries such as Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Denmark will never be first strike nations; therefore they must have other reasons for eventually procuring this aircraft.

They will purchase this platform because it has the ability to perform in the fighter role, the strike role, and in the ground attack role better than anything else that will be on the market in the next 40 years.

And that is the reason why Canada is purchasing this aircraft, and no others.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 03:48
by hb_pencil
SpudmanWP wrote:Sorce?


Hmmm. I used to have a source for that figure... but I can't find it. Actually I couldn't find any discussion of the baseline year.

Funny enough people in Sweetman's blog says its 2008 too. I'll search around for it tomorrow.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 05:30
by popcorn
A stealthy, survivable aircraft should not be looked at as a luxury useful only for first-day-of-war scenarios. The anti-air threat can persist for days, weeks and even months after hostilities commence. Mobile SAMs and peripheral systems will be difficult to neutralize and shortening the kill-chain is essential. The Balkans conflict comes to mind.

This is where the F-35 shines.. it can operate in hostile airspace using its superior SA in dynamic targeting mode, employing either its onboard PGMs to get the job done or passing along the information for other assets to prosecute the attack.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 07:17
by SpudmanWP
Using a baseline of 2008 for the $75 brings the BY$USD to $82.6/$86 mil (2014/2016)

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 14:40
by Conan
hotrampphotography wrote:

The main rationale behind the F-35 was to replace a wide range of existing fighter, strike, and ground attack aircraft. Namely, the F-16, A-10, F/A-18, AV8B, and RAF Harrier GR7 and 9’s. You state that the RCAF isn’t likely to engage in first day of war attacks, and you’re right. One only needs to look at the countries which are involved in the JSF project to determine that only 2 have the capabilities to be involved in first day of war attacks – the USA and the UK. Countries such as Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Denmark will never be first strike nations; therefore they must have other reasons for eventually procuring this aircraft.


Australia is acquiring Tactical Tomahawk Block IV to operate from it's Air Warfare Destroyers, future frigates and future submarines.

It currently has JASSM available for "day one" strikes and will have JASSM-ER in years to come (assuming it proceeds).

As of today however you are correct...

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 15:49
by markottawa
Views from a former CF-18 pilot and from a serving officer:

"Steve Fuhr - Continuing the F-35 Debate"
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=625

Mark
Ottawa

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 16:10
by hotrampphotography
markottawa wrote:Views from a former CF-18 pilot and from a serving officer:

"Steve Fuhr - Continuing the F-35 Debate"
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=625

Mark
Ottawa


Geez Mark, same crap different site?

I suppose you'd be happy now if I posted my piece found elsewhere on this forum giving credence to a multi platform fleet, but the very fact that I came up with the idea long before you did would only make you look bad - given that you're a "reporter".

Learn to post these things in the appropriate places, and stop with the links to ideas, thoughts, and considerations which aren't even your own.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 19:49
by hb_pencil
markottawa wrote:luke sandoz: Not much :D--other than our government's exceeding economy with the truth. Plus the RCAF is most unlikely to engage in "first day of war" attacks through and against heavy and effective air defences, the F-35's main rationale; and stealth is unnecessary for the continental air defence mission (our fighters' first priority)--incoming bombers don't use radar to detect approaching fighters as it would give their own position away.


Mark:I think its somewhat misleading to suggest that stealth is what makes the F-35 so costly and therefore is a prime reason for its cancellation. Really structure only accounts for about 15~25% of the airframe's cost. Its not the real cost driver. That can be accounted by the amount of avionics that are fitted into the aircraft, which could be +40% of the costs. That's the sensors, communications, electronic warfare and pilot aids. Those are necessary for continental air defence missions and makes the aircraft better than any of its competitors.

I won't go into how its useful for foreign interventions, others have done a good job of that.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 20:56
by m
@ Hotrampphotography
Quote: It won’t matter if Canada uses the a/c on the first day of a war or the 5th day of a war as we recently saw with our CF-18’s in Libya. The true first strike capability will always lie with countries like the US and the UK who will always use B-2’s and Tomahawks to take out those radar installations and heavy and effective air defences.

The main rationale behind the F-35 was to replace a wide range of existing fighter, strike, and ground attack aircraft. Namely, the F-16, A-10, F/A-18, AV8B, and RAF Harrier GR7 and 9’s. You state that the RCAF isn’t likely to engage in first day of war attacks, and you’re right. One only needs to look at the countries which are involved in the JSF project to determine that only 2 have the capabilities to be involved in first day of war attacks – the USA and the UK. Countries such as Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Norway, and Denmark will never be first strike nations; therefore they must have other reasons for eventually procuring this aircraft.

They will purchase this platform because it has the ability to perform in the fighter role, the strike role, and in the ground attack role better than anything else that will be on the market in the next 40 years.

And that is the reason why Canada is purchasing this aircraft, and no others.



I think you are probably right with your conclusion.
Nerveless, a main point for ordering the F35 is, also flying in a first day of war, or strike role in some countries.

Concerning the Netherlands, ordering Tomahawks has been postponed some years ago (Order: 30 Tomahawks), financial reasons, but still are on the list of the Navy.
The military doctrine speaks about having a capability joining missions on the first day of war with jets and frigates. As well as stated, a reason for ordering the F35.
Personally I think Tomahawks will be on the list for quite some more years … or may be never will ordered? (Nice having them, but don’t see any use why the navy would need Tomahawks)

Like Australia JASSM’s will be ordered for the F35, or may be as well for the F16 (the jet will fly some more years then planned).

Does the Dutch Airforce ever acted in a first strike role? Yes, during Kosovo, first day of war strike and Air Defence missions. (Day one, one mig 29 shot by a Dutch F16).
Will they ever be part of first day of war missions? Have my doubts with that many jets left.



Besides that, war becomes that much complicated, only the US will be able to this (I think).
A first day of war is that much complicated, the US Airforce does this better on their own, than making such a mission more complicated being joined by a partner/partners with only a few jets.

But also when not flying at the first day(s) of war, still having the capabilities of a 5th generation jet will be very important as well. Don’t forget, during Kosovo, even the last day of war, jets
have been shot with AA missiles. A F16 would have not a change in such an environment with double digit AA systems.

Australia does not fit in the list, seems to me, they will have a fully equipped and impressive fighting force for acting in a first day of war.

UK? The UK has some capabilities, not as much as you probably think.
Libya was only possible because the US delivered everything what was needed to do the job. At the first day of war, as well later on.
Europe, including the UK, has no capabilities to do this on their own.
The UK: 14 Tomahawks in four days. The UK possessed some +60 Tomahawks.


Military Operations in Libya (Library House of commons)
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05909.pdf

Quote: Although the sortie rate between the US and coalition partner nation became more equitable over the period of operations, the Pentagon acknowledged that the US continued to provide nearly 80% of all air refuelling, almost 75% of aerial surveillance and 100% of all electronic warfare missions.

Quote: Action to establish a no-fly zone started quickly, with about 20 French fighter jets going on the first sorties over Libya,5 with the first priority being to weaken the Qaddafi regime’s air defences.
To this end, 124 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched against integrated air defence targets in the first few days, largely from American destroyers and submarines, but also one British Trafalgar-class submarine deployed in the Mediterranean.

Quote: In addition to the launch of Tomahawk land-attack missiles (TLAM), the Pentagon also revealed that by 28 March a further 600 precision guided munitions had also been expended (455 from the US and 147 from the coalition).

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 21:27
by m
Canadian F-35 pilots to train in Florida?

The Canadian Press
MURRAY BREWSTER Published: November 03, 2011


OTTAWA - Canadian pilots are expected to receive training for the F-35 stealth jet at a U.S. Air Force base in Florida, a plan that raises questions about the future of the country's existing advanced fighter training school.

Internal Defence Department documents show that a fee-for-service plan involving an international training centre, already constructed at Eglin Air Force Base by manufacturer Lockheed Martin, has been the main option under consideration.

Several air force briefings compiled last year and obtained by The Canadian Press under access to information laws show that not only is there "potential for NO pilot training in Canada," but that "pooled" training with international partners is likely the most cost-effective plan.

The country's top military commander, Gen. Walt Natynczyk, deferred questions about the training plan to the head of the air force on Thursday.

A spokeswoman for National Defence says the military is in the early stages of figuring out how training will be conducted and a final decision about using the U.S. base has not been made.

The country's fighter pilots are currently trained to fly the CF-18 at an advanced school at Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake, Alta. Changes to the arrangement would be a political headache for the Conservatives.

When it announced last year where the new F-35s would be based, the Harper government was silent on the training aspect.

"We anticipate that once initial conversion training has taken place, the majority of training for Canadian Forces members will take place in Canada," said Lisa Evong in an email response to The Canadian Press late Thursday.

"Any final decision must achieve the best result for training for Canadian Forces members. As the RCAF continues to develop its concepts of operation and training for the F-35, the optimum training solution for Canada will be further refined."

... address questions about the future of the Cold Lake training centre.

Her statement is at odds, however, with the expectations of the F-35 program and the way Lockheed Martin has conducted training on other advanced aircraft, such as the C-130-J Hercules transport.

All of the countries buying the radar-evading jet were expected to use the company's high-tech centre in Florida, where pilots will learn to fly the plane and aircraft maintainers receive similar expert instruction, according to reports in the U.S.

Once the crews have been qualified, each squadron receives a simulator that allows for follow-up exercises where pilots refresh their skills and conduct dry-runs of operational missions.

The questions over training come as the Pentagon's chief weapons tester raises concerns about whether the F-35 is ready for pilots to use. A memo leaked to the U.S. media and penned by Michael Gilmore describes the F-35 as an "immature aircraft" and that hands-on instruction should be delayed.

Canada does not take delivery of its first F-35 until 2016-17.

Natynczyk, appearing before the House of Commons defence committee Thursday, defended the multi-billion dollar fighter purchase and supported the government's decision to buy only 65 planes.

That number is the "minimum requirement," the defence chief told the all-party committee. His comments, while not directly contradicting Defence Minister Peter MacKay, provided clarification on the military's position.

MacKay told the Commons on Wednesday that the military was satisfied with the number of planes.

"The short answer is that's the number the air force asked for and they have clearly indicated that is the right balance," MacKay said in answer to the NDP. "They have clearly indicated this will allow our pilots in the air force to carry out the important work that we ask of them."

The controversial fighter — with a price tag of between $75 million and $150...[

... million per plane — has been a political lightning rod since the Conservatives announced their intention to buy it in July 2010.

But internal briefings show one of the reasons the air force wants to farm out training to the U.S., is because it is worried not enough aircraft can be set aside to satisfy both instruction and operations.

Canada is committed to providing at least 36 fighters for North American air defence and when normal maintenance cycles are included, the government's purchase leaves few jets available for overseas missions.

The Americans have long complained that even with the current fleet of 77 CF-18s, Ottawa does not have enough aircraft to defend all of the country's major cities in the event of war — or major emergency, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The air force briefings note that Canada is the only country involved in the joint strike fighter program that does not account for the potential loss of aircraft due to accident.

Natynczyk said not buying so-called "attrition aircraft" is a long-standing policy of the Canadian government.

Liberal defence critic John McKay questioned whether unmanned aerial vehicles could fill the gap in manned fighters, but Natynczyk says he doesn't believe the technology is mature enough to allow for that.

The general wouldn't say what number of fighters would be comfortable, but when Canada signed a memorandum for development of the F-35 it indicated it was buying 80 planes


http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/canada/ ... eet--page0

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 21:43
by hotrampphotography
RCAF Op MOBILE Accomplishments

Task Force Libeccio:

The seven CF188 aircraft deployed on Operation MOBILE conducted 946 sorties, which made up 10% of NATO's strike sorties. Over the course of their sorties, the CF188s dropped 696 bombs of various types in protecting Libyan civilians and enforcing the no-fly zone.

The two CC150T and one CC130T aircraft deployed on Operation MOBILE flew 389 air-to-air re-fuelling sorties. They dispensed a total of 18,535,572 lbs of fuel to aircraft from six nations involved in Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR - The United States, The United Kingdom, France, Italy, The United Arab Emirates and Qatar. The CC130T aircraft re-deployed to Canada 12 September.

The two CP140 aircraft deployed on Operation MOBILE conducted 181 sorties off the coast of Libya and on land. They conducted Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance sorties as well as strike coordination and armed reconnaissance-coordinator sorties which provided information which helped the NATO effort to protect civilians.

GBU-12 500-lb bombs dropped 495
GBU-10 2000-lb bombs dropped 188
GBU-38 500-lb bombs dropped 11
GBU-31 2000-lb bombs dropped 2

Hours flown by CF188 3881.7

19 March- CF188 Fly first operational mission;
26 August- CF188s surpass 3000 hours of operational flying;

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 21:53
by hotrampphotography
As for where the training will take place, it really doesn't matter. As the article points out our J-Herc crews currently train in the US anyways, and you don't hear a peep out of Canadians about that.

Finally with regards to Tomahawks and other first day of war arms - it's one thing to have the capability to carry them, to acquire and utilise them is something else entirely.

Oh, one last thing - someone earlier, I forget who, made a comment about Canada needing an IMF loan to purchase our CF-35's. Unlike Europe and the United States, Canada is in a fine financial state and this purchase, along with our purchase of new naval vessels, will be paid for from our own pockets, thanks very much.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 22:51
by luke_sandoz
Mark,

Hear ya, but I can't agree. Your ability to predict the future is much better than mine. My take is the world is rapidly going all wobbly and wars and conflicts are coming, lots of them. Canada, despite the CBC efforts to re-write history, has a long proud tradition of being there on day 1 of serious stuff like WW1 & WW2.

Also, "stealth" is an advantage in ALL missions and although much is written about the F-35=stealth, the real advantage of the F-35, the technologies that put the F-35 so far ahead of its 4g competition is the Sensor Fusion. Big, big, big win for the pilot.

With respect to cost, yes the F-35 is not inexpensive, but that cost focus - Canada can afford the F-35, is a smokescreen that masks what should be discussed - the Value Proposition.

The F-35 represents excellent value for money.

Canada can afford to put its pilots into top of the line equipment . . . no reason to settle for sort of good aircraft.

The lives of Canadian pilots are worth the investment.

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2011, 23:51
by cafpilot
hotrampphotography wrote:As for where the training will take place, it really doesn't matter. As the article points out our J-Herc crews currently train in the US anyways, and you don't hear a peep out of Canadians about that.

Oh, one last thing - someone earlier, I forget who, made a comment about Canada needing an IMF loan to purchase our CF-35's. Unlike Europe and the United States, Canada is in a fine financial state and this purchase, along with our purchase of new naval vessels, will be paid for from our own pockets, thanks very much.


And don't forget about the Canadian C-17 pilots who train out of Altus, fighter guys training at ENJPPT at Sheppard AFB, and Chinook pilots doing training in the US also. It is not to much of a step to train F-35 pilots at Eglin when the time comes.

As for the money, it is already budgeted/set aside, so no big worry there.

cheers

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 00:06
by m
hotrampphotography wrote:As for where the training will take place, it really doesn't matter. As the article points out our J-Herc crews currently train in the US anyways, and you don't hear a peep out of Canadians about that.

Finally with regards to Tomahawks and other first day of war arms - it's one thing to have the capability to carry them, to acquire and utilise them is something else entirely.

Oh, one last thing - someone earlier, I forget who, made a comment about Canada needing an IMF loan to purchase our CF-35's. Unlike Europe and the United States, Canada is in a fine financial state and this purchase, along with our purchase of new naval vessels, will be paid for from our own pockets, thanks very much.


Sir, there is Europe and countries in Europe. Countries, as for instance Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands can pay their bills too and are not in a position like some other European countries.

Personally I think training in the US seems a very good, may be even the best option for allied pilots like also Canada. Getting a same level in Canada seems to me very difficult to accomplish concerning F35 knowledge

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 01:08
by hotrampphotography
cafpilot wrote:And don't forget about the Canadian C-17 pilots who train out of Altus, fighter guys training at ENJPPT at Sheppard AFB, and Chinook pilots doing training in the US also. It is not to much of a step to train F-35 pilots at Eglin when the time comes.

As for the money, it is already budgeted/set aside, so no big worry there.

cheers


Agreed!

To me, it's just interesting how every little thing about this program - even details that already exist in other programs - draw fire. We didn't hear anything about this stuff when we got our Hercs, Globesmashers, and Chinooks...and yet now it's the end of the world! lol

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 01:14
by hotrampphotography
m wrote:Sir, there is Europe and countries in Europe. Countries, as for instance Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands can pay their bills too and are not in a position like some other European countries.

Personally I think training in the US seems a very good, may be even the best option for allied pilots like also Canada. Getting a same level in Canada seems to me very difficult to accomplish concerning F35 knowledge


Agree with you regarding European countries. My comment was just out of frustration as many people believe that as the USA goes, so goes Canada - it couldn't be further from the truth. But this is an aviation forum...hehe

FYI - there are already RCAF personnel involved in the program and rest assurred their knowledge is very extensive concerning the F-35 and how not only will it meet Canada's needs but with every intricate nuance of the planes systems as well.

Cheers!

Canada committed to F-35 (Bob Cox)

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 02:30
by alloycowboy
Here is a really good article by Bob Cox on Canada's commitment to purchase the F-35.

Fantino, who heads military procurement, said the critics were fueled “by a lot of misinformation, miscommunication, and some jealousy,” the latter a reference to supporters of Boeing, which would like to sell Canada its F/A-18 Super Hornet.

“We will purchase the F-35,” Fantino said firmly. “We’re on record. We’re part of the crusade. We’re not backing down.”


More after the jump!

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk/2011/11/canada-committed-to-f-35.html#ixzz1dAQ8Ca7h

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 14:28
by geogen
SpudmanWP wrote:More clarification is apparently needed.

A. The Canadian CY2002 $75 quote is larger than LM's CY2010 $65 number for three main reasons:
..1. It is full Flyaway, not REC flyaway as in LM's number.
..2. It includes a 4% buffer that covers both the Blk4 and Blk5 upgrades
..3. It includes development and acquisition funds for both the P&D refueling and the Drag Chute options.

B. The last official DOC that I have seen says that Canada will plan on pilot training in Eglin.


Since when isn't more clarification needed on any aviation Procurement debate?? :D

1. Good catch on the CY2002 'Total Flyaway' 'estimate' of $75m each, indeed based on CY2002 dollars and not 2008 or 2010.

But I'll have to counter too by referring hb's attention to these original 'estimates' found in the original SAR as apparently being based on both expected high volume total sales, eg ~3,000 and high annual FRP rates of production similar to those still currently expected. Not just the annual rates.

2. I think the estimated 4% 'buffer' for block IV/V upgrades is included in 'rest of' portion of DND's $6bn estimate for acquisition opposed to being part of the actual $75m Total Flyaway (if that's what you were interpreting)?

3. Ditto for the chute and probe... is apparently not part of the $75m flyaway, but too included within the remaining portion of DND's estimated $6bn acquisition.

Would you concur?

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 16:00
by geogen
hb and hotramp:

ALOT of info and specs being debated here... appreciate the lively exchange of viewpoints and insight.

I wanted to follow up on a few:

The 2009 SAR entails a ton of detailed 'current estimates' from that latest SAR from which DND was and is currently still basing judgments from. But with respect to both Schedule related estimates and Cost estimates (being based in part off Schedule) found within the 2009 SAR, one has to unfortunately file this report away as anything from 2010 and prior is to a large extent, obsolete. Expect the next 'current estimate' soon - expect further revised 'estimates'.

The same applies for DND's referenced 2010 TBR. It can more or less be filed away. Expect the next revision, including the latest assessments and estimates to be out shortly.

hb: re my conjecture that RCAF's first combat unit of perhaps 9 F-35 possibly achieving IOC by 2021 was merely based on your info that acquisition would consist of 1,3,9,13,13,13,13 aircraft units procured starting in 2016. The 9 units scheduled for 2018 procurement, delivered by late 2020, IOC by 2021. Would you concur?

Expect annual Full Rate Procurement to be reduced, at least Stateside unfortunately. FRP might be delayed 1-2 yrs too, to coincide with a delayed IOT&E completion and possible 2018 IOC. But in truth, there's not much confidence right now suggesting that high annual rates of 70-80 F-35A units/yr will be procured by USAF. Not only will PUC costs be higher than originally expected for USAF buys, but with Austere budget environments causing cuts, not the necessary increases, there need to be massive cuts in other AF programs (like cutting the entire legacy F-15 fleet eg and delaying the Tanker buy, etc). This would likely further influence Total unit Flyaway and other sustainment economies of scale for all customers.

In relation to DND's $6bn acquisition estimate (section 1) of the PBO Cost comparison: since the $75m 'estimate' appears to be derived from the CY2002 Flyaway estimate, is the $6bn portion (sec 1) of the acquisition 'estimate' also in CY2002 dollars? Adjusted in later years for inflation?

Would sections 7, 8 in the Cost Comparison chart comprising of 20 yr life support and overhaul be adjusted somewhat closer to PBO's estimates in your opinion, if for example economies of scale from worldwide operator VOLUME was substantially reduced from current expectations?

Lastly, in your opinion, could plans for F-35 upgrade to block IV and block V, along with expected regular avionics upgrades every 2 yrs and hardware upgrades every 4 yrs be significantly delayed and reduced if cost 'estimates' are significantly revised to the negative? I guess some would be skeptical given that CF-18 hornets are apparently to be flying until the mid-20s without any further funded avionics upgrades? That would seem to be one reality of unintended circumstances regarding unexpected cost increases and delays.

-------------

Please note that I'm a true Canook supporter. I've got French Canadian heritage. Canadians should be proud of their fiscal responsibility (respects to Mr Flaherty in recent days) and economic policy success overall - a model for the world, really. Despite Canada's ambitious new Fiscal policy plans to see a balanced budget by 2015/16 and surely unpopular political strains which would accompany this plan... I fully support RCAF's best possible TACAIR recapitalization process and only support the best possible cost-effective outcome in the end for Canada. I'd be cheering you on if in 2026 you had 75x F-35 equipping the RCAF, on budget, upgraded on time, and comfortably sustained. My only contention is that the maple leaf be on a fighter which has been openly evaluated and objectively scrutinized and parsed from the latest realistic findings and estimates (subject to change soon). A fighter recapitalization should NOT be about a CRUSADE, it's about cautious analysis and willingness to adjust plans for sake of national defense first. Selecting a jet for long life service is not a religion.

Thus, it shouldn't necessarily be the method one uses to make estimates which is so important, as much as acknowledging that past estimates have been inaccurate and are in fact evolving as we speak. New factors might come into play which should be critically and flexibly studied by any customer in order to secure the best possible platform(s) for acquisition. If the F-35 is still the jet to fit the bill, then more power to Canada... Just think twice before signing and committing to cancellation fees before new schedule/cost revelations surface in the near-term. imho.

God speed RCAf~

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 16:43
by SpudmanWP
@Geo: Nope, the Blk4&5, P&D, and Chute upgrades are part of the $75 (I just read my cached docs again).

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 17:50
by hb_pencil
SpudmanWP wrote:Using a baseline of 2008 for the $75 brings the BY$USD to $82.6/$86 mil (2014/2016)


http://www.aph.gov.au/Hansard/joint/commttee/J12801.pdf

Okay, I now know that the Australian figures are for $75 million AUD at 2008... or $69 million USD. With the CAD and USD near parity, and accounting for some mods, you have $75 million. I know its stated officially somewhere however... I had to check it when I did my own calculations. Also I suspect both Australia and Canada sing from the same song sheet when it comes to prices.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 18:03
by geogen
m -

Good points. No doubt that just about ever Country has their own distinct accounting format they use with regards to fighter aviation procurement. I just got an education on this here from hb, lol, and then with further reading on the link he provided. I do realize that US uses a system which tends to add to the Total Flyaway Cost all of the following: PGSE equipment, Peculiar training equipment, Integrated Logistics Support, other engine support and miscellaneous initial support, pubs data, and initial spares... all as part of the 'Total Procurement Unit Cost'.

This 'PUC' is what's essential to know though, regardless of how a foreign customer actually accounts for it. It will eventually trickle down somewhere to some various method of accounting for costs.

As I believe what hb was clarifying in Canada's case, they calculate a 'Production' component within their total estimated Acquisition Cost. This includes the Total Flyaway + any customized features being included (ie refuel probe and chute) + 2 block upgrades (IV and V).

The other aspects of a US jet Procurement however are apparently spread out among other acquisition and maintenance components of Canada's 'Total Program Cost'. So it's not like a foreign customer isn't billed for US's costs found within a PUC cost, but it's simply spread out and itemized differently in different categories. Hence, the US's PUC cost - in addition to Total Flyaway - is actually a pretty good reference point by which foreign govts of prospective customers can evaluate and judge how much their system will cost Total budget outlays after all said and done.

Take for instance this 'fixed + incentive' priced LRIP-4 order which after being muscled by DoD, is now estimated to have a REC flyaway (lowest subset of the Total cost) of about $123m. But the PUC? The current LRIP-4 PUC is apparently estimated at over $220m! My guesstimate back at the time was conservative as I was still thinking about $200m, or slightly over - even after a 'fixed' contract. And yes... I was catching a lot of flack at the time for even suggesting such an astronomical price. :evil:

The unfortunate fact is however... that US's remaining LRIP orders are going to be further delayed and reduced, FRP will likely be pushed back a year or two, and when FRP does arrive it will most likely consist of substantially reduced US orders. Add to this already higher than originally estimated unit costs and unfortunately Unit Costs are not likely going to track even close to where current expectations advertise them to go.

FWIW, my guesstimate for FY16's F-35A 'Total Flyaway' cost - assuming minimum 75% of currently expected FY16 orders placed - would have to be closer to $130m in TY dollars (and perhaps a $105m REC flyaway, then year cost).

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 19:58
by m
Does any Canadian know about their F35, both systems Probe and Boom? Or Probe or Boom? Curious, because this is interesting.

Both systems on board will give Canadian pilots a real advantage when on a mission.
Even back home it doesn’t matter what kind of refuelling tanker is in the air, a Canadian tanker or even any other tanker from the US.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 20:07
by hb_pencil
m wrote:Does any Canadian know about their F35, both systems Probe and Boom? Or Probe or Boom? Curious, because this is interesting.

Both systems on board will give Canadian pilots a real advantage when on a mission.
Even back home it doesn’t matter what kind of refuelling tanker is in the air, a Canadian tanker or even any other tanker from the US.


Canada has asked whether it is possible if their units can be equipped with both for interoperability with the US. Last I've heard its being studied by LM.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2011, 22:40
by geogen
SpudmanWP wrote:@Geo: Nope, the Blk4&5, P&D, and Chute upgrades are part of the $75 (I just read my cached docs again).


Spud:

Could you copy and paste that reference from your cached doc??

Not trying to nickle and dime ya but if the case it would seem to conflict then with the 2009 SAR cited by DND giving CY2002 Total Flyaway of $75m in 2002 dollars?

And it would seem to conflict with the DND vs PBO Cost comparison doc which appears to itemize the expenditures making up the $6bn as follows:

"F-35A costs obtained from the 2009 Selected Acquisition Report and reflects 2002 dollars adjusted for inflation in the years of delivery." ie 65 jets x $75m = $4.875bn, plus the remainder ($1.125bn) implied as going towards the following:

-- potential modifications such as an Air-to-Air Refuelling Probe and a Drag Chute (development, material and installation)

-- two block upgrades (Block 4 and Block 5) estimated at 2% of acquisition costs per upgrade.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2011, 00:26
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:CY2002 'Total Flyaway' 'estimate' of $75m each, indeed based on CY2002 dollars and not 2008 or 2010.

But I'll have to counter too by referring hb's attention to these original 'estimates' found in the original SAR as apparently being based on both expected high volume total sales, eg ~3,000 and high annual FRP rates of production similar to those still currently expected. Not just the annual rates.


Okay, see I think this is where I think you see some data and make it fit your view. Let me try to explain this to you simply, for a final time.

There are several influences on cost, but the biggest one is the learning curve... basically how your labour force learns to build an aircraft more efficiently. Its actually a very mechanical process; the more experience an individual gets, the cheaper it is to produce a unit. How many builds you have in the future cannot affect the individual unit costs.

IF you want a more complex view of how an individual lot price is arrived at, I culled this from an RAND corporation report on the F-22. It was used to identify the future unit costs of a F-22:

Image

As you can note, there is no factor here about the total size of the buy used to estimate unit cost. The primary inputs here (in green) are all particular to a current unit or before: Lot production quantity, Prior unit and profit. Now Tail-up can be considered a future cost, as it refers to the specific costs associated with the closedown of the F-22's line. However for the purposes of the F-35 discussion, that is not relevant unless you are stating by 2020 they will decide to close down the line.

One of the few way that a future cost can affect current unit prices is in multi-year buys. In that case the contractor can buy large quantities of subsystems, components or materials in one buy, decreasing their overall costs. However the effect of that does not translate in normal acquisitions because of the mechanics of a lot by lot purchase system. The other one is long lead items, but thats really just buying some equipment early for the lot after the current one.

As I've stated before, Total buy numbers main effect is at one point in a procurement program; at the start when DoD decides how many aircraft it decides to purchase and over what time frame. That then helps determines the size of the production line, which in turn determines lot size.

I'm sorry Geogen but you are wrong about this. Total buy numbers are less important than lot buys.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2011, 00:43
by hb_pencil
Oh and to further drive home the point... This is from a Defense Acquisition University courseware the introduction into Developing the Program Budget.
Key point:

The full funding policy, applicable to the Procurement and Military
Construction (MILCON) appropriations, is the practice of budgeting for
the total cost of major procurement and construction projects in the
fiscal year in which they will be initiated (that is, placed on contract).
The key to applying the full funding policy is estimating how many end
items will be placed on contract in each fiscal year
and the associated
cost of those end items.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2011, 02:09
by SpudmanWP
@Geo: We're both right :shock:

The $75 is then year dollars and includes the P&D and Blk Upgrades.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro- ... on-eng.asp

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2011, 02:30
by hb_pencil
SpudmanWP wrote:@Geo: We're both right :shock:

The $75 is then year dollars and includes the P&D and Blk Upgrades.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro- ... on-eng.asp


Hah... never noticed that line. I'll need to do some revisions.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2011, 03:28
by geogen
SpudmanWP wrote:@Geo: We're both right :shock:

The $75 is then year dollars and includes the P&D and Blk Upgrades.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro- ... on-eng.asp


$75m is 'TY' dollars??

The DND + PBO Cost comparison doc referenced says this: F-35A costs obtained from the 2009 Selected Acquisition Report and reflects 2002 dollars adjusted for inflation in the years of delivery. ?

Looking at the 2009 SAR, it does in fact clearly estimate an eventual $75m Total Flyaway cost back in CY2002 dollars.

Multiply 65 by the estimated $75m in CY2002 dollars... the remaining sum contained in the full (section 1) acquisition estimate of $6bn, ie roughly $1.125bn, would then be implied to the other sections other than aircraft acquisition listed: a) the probe and b) implementing the follow-on block IV/V upgrade?


hb:

Thanks for the diagrams, I guess... I got a slight headache trying to study them lol.

I'll just close by saying thanks for the education and opening my mind more on the topic. But in one area, I'm pretty adamant about how the original F-35 business model was designed to be successful... volume + max annual rates.

I think if you look at your own sources linked and cross reference with sources which will be due out soon, they will both reinforce the valid point found in the 2009 SAR: that Total Volume of sales do in fact help determine a Contractor's estimated unit price. It's right there in the SAR. What reduced Volume does is exactly what you cautioned about... it reduces not just the back end sales, but also the front end and the mid-end sales... hence, reduced annual rates during FRP = smaller Labor force and less than optimal efficiency = less than optimal economy of scale exploits. It probably won't be a major difference, but volume should in theory also effect how LM estimates what it can offer to it's shareholders as a plug for investing in the company. Take out volume, and investments will tend to follow in kind. Something else to consider in the overall formula on how Industry determines a best cost it can offer customers.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2011, 07:44
by SpudmanWP
Yep, TY$ is what it says. It used the BY$2002 dollar estimates (BY = Baseline Year, aka 2002) in the 2009 SAR report and adjusted (for inflation) the total for TY$ in delivery years. It's a roundabout way of putting it, but that is what it is.

I don't have the 2009 SAR, but the 2010 one puts the FY2016 F-35As at BY$67 mil and the FY2022 F-35As at BY$64 mil.

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2011, 14:51
by geogen
SpudmanWP wrote:Yep, TY$ is what it says. It used the BY$2002 dollar estimates (BY = Baseline Year, aka 2002) in the 2009 SAR report and adjusted (for inflation) the total for TY$ in delivery years. It's a roundabout way of putting it, but that is what it is.

I don't have the 2009 SAR, but the 2010 one puts the FY2016 F-35As at BY$67 mil and the FY2022 F-35As at BY$64 mil.


BTW, here's the TY estimates from the 2009 SAR.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&s ... r=30&w=722

The first couple years of DND's planned buys for FY14 and FY15 list a REC flyaway cost estimate (from the 2009 SAR) of slightly less than $80m in TY dollars, with the estimated main buys from FY16-FY20 coming in at slightly less than $75m each in TY dollars (ie $73.5m - $74.5m), according to the 2009 SAR.

Given that these referred prices are in fact only the REC Flyaway portion from the now defunct 2009 SAR estimates, it could be assumed that the remaining portion of the Total Flyaway (ie non-recurring and ancillary) would be part of DND's noted 'other acquisition costs' (along with probe and chute add-ons and block IV/V upgrades) in the section (1) estimate of $6 billion.

But as noted, the basis under which these core estimates are founded (ie the 2009 SAR report) is unfortunately now consisting of obsolete data needing further revision. For example, the USAF unit procurement size in FY14 (Canada's first buy year) will be substantially less than that estimated in the 2009 SAR.

edit: above link is to the google "Quick View" for the official PDF: www.dod.gov/pubs/.../11_F_1176_JSF_as_of_Dec2009SAR.pdf

The TY estimates should be found on page 30?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2011, 15:42
by SpudmanWP
That link comes up as a error 400. Could you upload it to the "Program Docs" thread?

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2011, 20:04
by spazsinbad
This is the link for SAR doc: http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/logistics_m ... 009SAR.pdf (0.5Mb)

Attached on PGM DOC thread here:
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 160#208160

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2012, 20:01
by maus92
Canada should begin thinking about alternatives to the F-35
Perter Morton | 3-10-2012 | Toronto Star

"WASHINGTON—Although the Harper government continues to put a brave public face on its plans to buy Lockheed Martin’s Star Wars-esque F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the reality may be that the plane is an expensive and perhaps unnecessary war toy that would do little to protect Canada’s borders."

"Besides the huge financial commitment in a still struggling global economy, from the Canadian perspective the F-35 does not seem to be a good fit for the Canadian Armed Forces.

As a replacement for the United States’ current fleet of F-16s and F-18s, the original thinking was that the stealthy, 2,000 km/h F-35 would be invaluable in a confrontation with, say, China over Taiwan. But Canada is unlikely to be involved in that kind of superpower conflict. As for monitoring and protecting the Canadian Arctic — presumably a key function for any Canadian fighter — the plane’s limited range (about 2,000 kilometres) and single engine make that problematic."

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... o-the-f-35

Unread postPosted: 11 Mar 2012, 22:11
by m
maus92 wrote:Canada should begin thinking about alternatives to the F-35
Perter Morton | 3-10-2012 | Toronto Star

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... o-the-f-35


Quote: This has not been lost on those American allies that originally committed to the F-35. Britain, Japan, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Norway, Turkey and the Netherlands have all started to either cut back their commitments or second guess the entire program.

Leaving or cutting the entire program by allies?
Probably wishful thinking by the author than a journalistic observation.

Cutting back commitments. Suppose the author is not aware of a financial crisis?


“All” started to either cut back their commitments....
When he means numbers F35? Only Italy and Denmark “officially” dropped their total numbers F35

Indeed probably some will do so, but officially still nothing is known about dropped numbers by other level partners.
o Norway even did raise the number F35’s: 48> 56.

o The UK: 2015, when this will be known (as far as I know)
o The Netherlands: Only a government in charge (2015), ordering the F35, has the authority what the budget will be and decides what number F35’s will be ordered (2002).
o Australia: officially, still 100 F35’s
o Canada: 65 F35’s
o Turkey: Till so far they did not drop the number F35’s

o Japan: Dropped the number F35’s!? Wasn’t aware Japan did a commitment.


Quote: While there is little doubt Canada needs to update its aging CF-18s (which are going through a $2.6 billion overhaul), the best tool for Canada to maintain and protect its borders may something far simpler and cheaper — the pilotless drone.

Till so far, a drone, as an equivalent, capacities, of the CF18 does not exist.
When such a drone will be flying, the vehicle will probably be more expensive than a piloted jet.

Or does he suggests, a RCAF with only some (simple) reconnaissance drones?
Protecting the borders with a predator? Against what? Against for instance a Russian (reconnaissance) aircraft / jet, like in Europe a few times a year?

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2012, 16:53
by duplex

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2012, 19:07
by hotrampphotography
duplex wrote:http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/133433/f_35-unit-cost-tops-%24200m.html

Wow! thats not good


Buried half way down the article is what really matters...

While these are the projected unit costs for the LRIP 5 aircraft, there is no implication that production aircraft would cost anywhere near these amounts.

However, costs will not begin to decrease until the F-35 enters full-scale production, and this is unlikely to happen for some years yet, especially since the Pentagon has now decided to further reduction LRIP production until flight tests demonstrate that the aircraft is meeting its performance and reliability goals.


And that is why I never bother paying much attention to articles about cost at this point and time.

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2012, 19:58
by maus92
F-35 purchase not guaranteed, Fantino says
Backing out of purchase 'not as yet discounted,' says procurement minister

Laura Payton | CBC News

"Canada could reconsider an agreement to buy new F-35 joint strike fighter jets, Julian Fantino said Tuesday, as partner countries re-evaluate their own commitments.

"We have not as yet discounted, the possibility of course, of backing out of any of the program," Fantino, associate minister of national defence, told the House defence committee Tuesday.

"None of the partners have. We are not. And we’ll just have to think it through further as time goes on, but we are confident that we will not leave Canada or our men and women in uniform in a lurch, but it’s hypothetical to go any further right now."

Fantino's comments mark a change in tone from previous answers to questions about the possibility of rising costs and design problems with the Lockheed Martin fighter jets. He had previously left no possibility the government is exploring other options or considering pulling out of the agreement with allies like the United States, Norway, Italy and Australia."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... -f35s.html

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2012, 21:24
by m
One could compare some prices, as for instance the Israeli price of the F35 with the offers to Switzerland.
Both roughly a same number jets. Plus the Israeli F35’s are not yet even full production jets.

Like to know any level partner, who possibly threatens to leave the F35 project, will be able to order a jet substantially cheaper?
Not to forget these prices are without extra needed pods, some $15 million per jet.
While the F35, most of these pods are not needed c.q. included.


According to recent newspaper reports, Dassault put forward a counter offer to supply Switzerland with 18 Rafale jets for 2.7 billion Swiss francs
instead of an original demand of 4 billion francs for 22 jets.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... DK20120214

A. 22 Gripens: Swiss francs 3.1 billion = $ 3.4 billion
Per Gripen: $154.5 million

A. 22 Rafales: Swiss Francs 4 billion = $4.33 billion
Per Rafale (22): $196.8 million


B. Second probable offer by Dassault (without A2G equipment)
18 Rafales: Swiss francs 2.7 billion = $ 2923.21
Per Rafale: $162.9 million

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2012, 23:51
by maus92
Minister raises prospect of nixing controversial F-35 fighter jet purchase
Murray Brewster | The Canadian Press

(This is a dense article)

"Since declaring their intention to go with F-35, the Conservatives have doggedly defended the decision. They've dismissed calls for a reconsideration of the project and attacked critics who question the uncertain price tag.

The Harper government says the $9 billion it intends to spend on 65 of the jets is carved in stone. But the government won't see a firm price until it gets close to first delivery, which is nominally expected in 2016.

The cost for 20 years' of in-service support remains a matter of debate, with the air force insisting it will only run in the neighbourhood of an additional $7 billion — a figure the Parliamentary Budget Officer disputes.

Even Pentagon estimates suggest the maintenance bill could run between US$14 billion and US$19 billion.

In months of questioning in the Commons, Fantino has insisted there is no need for a backup plan in case of further delays in the project as the manufacturer works out software and design glitches.

On Tuesday, he told the committee he was waiting for defence officials to prepare alternate scenarios to the F-35 deal, the so-called Plan B that opposition parties have demanded.

He described the request as "what if" research.

Dan Ross, the senior defence official in charge of procurement, testified that his staff and the air force have been continuously monitoring the international aircraft market, but played down the idea that there is a lot of choice available.

"We don't see a change in what's out there," Ross said."

http://www.mysask.com/portal/site/main/ ... cachetoken

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2012, 00:00
by maus92
Tory about-face on F-35 jets as minister denies ‘definitive decision’ on $16B deal
Postmedia News

Story contains a graphic of F-35A features and potential weapons.

"Two years of unwavering Conservative support for the F-35 took a major hit Tuesday as Associate Defence Minister Julian Fantino said the government has not ruled out walking away from the troubled stealth fighter program.

Fantino also revealed a team of defence department officials have been considering “all kinds of contingencies” should the F-35 not be ready to replace Canada’s aging fleet of CF-18s and acknowledged the government does not know how much each F-35 will cost."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/13 ... been-made/

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2012, 00:58
by alloycowboy
Obviously Canada wants the F-35 but if Lockheed Martin can't provide them in the realm of affordability then all the JSF partners may have to buy an alternative fighter even though it is not the one they want.

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2012, 03:28
by hotrampphotography
Agreed alloycowboy...

And to think that some of us still long for a multi platform fleet...

At this point, I'd just settle for something that we won't be flying while other countries retire the same platform years before us.

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2012, 23:06
by 2meese
pushoksti wrote:
butters wrote:Canada's actual military needs could be more than adequately satisfied by SuperHornets or Gripen NGs.


Great, more comments from the peanut gallery. Please don't comment on what you don't know. Is it your job to analyze Canada's next fighter aircraft, do you know every single capability of both fighters, including the F-35 and compare them ACCURATELY?? No, you can't, so stop suggesting nonsense and stay in your lane, whatever it is.


Well, do you? Can you provide an accurate and unbiased campartison? I seriously doubt you have all of the specs/facts on either machine. Unless you have really good insight into the industry. If you do, why would you be talking about it in this forum.

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2012, 23:36
by hb_pencil
2meese wrote:
pushoksti wrote:
butters wrote:Canada's actual military needs could be more than adequately satisfied by SuperHornets or Gripen NGs.


Great, more comments from the peanut gallery. Please don't comment on what you don't know. Is it your job to analyze Canada's next fighter aircraft, do you know every single capability of both fighters, including the F-35 and compare them ACCURATELY?? No, you can't, so stop suggesting nonsense and stay in your lane, whatever it is.


Well, do you? Can you provide an accurate and unbiased campartison? I seriously doubt you have all of the specs/facts on either machine. Unless you have really good insight into the industry. If you do, why would you be talking about it in this forum.


Actually, with technical expertise (Which pushoksti possesses) and knowledge of the fighter market he and others can make a generalized comparison between various capabilities that offer a fairly accurate rating of their relative position.

In the case of the Department of National Defence's actual assessment, it was even close between the F-35 and other capabilities. You could discount stuff like stealth and it still bested other platforms like Super Hornet on things like capability and cost.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 19:39
by pushoksti
2meese wrote:
pushoksti wrote:
butters wrote:Canada's actual military needs could be more than adequately satisfied by SuperHornets or Gripen NGs.


Great, more comments from the peanut gallery. Please don't comment on what you don't know. Is it your job to analyze Canada's next fighter aircraft, do you know every single capability of both fighters, including the F-35 and compare them ACCURATELY?? No, you can't, so stop suggesting nonsense and stay in your lane, whatever it is.


Well, do you? Can you provide an accurate and unbiased campartison? I seriously doubt you have all of the specs/facts on either machine. Unless you have really good insight into the industry. If you do, why would you be talking about it in this forum.


Why are you trolling. You just bumped a dead, months old thread for that useless post. Your post in the other Canadian thread boasting about the Gripen is completely based on video game experience. I would just stop posting if I were you.