Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2012, 02:45
by 1st503rdsgt
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE

Canada’s associate defense minister said on March 13 that one of the most ardent supporters of the F-35 program could back out of a multi-billion purchase of the fighter jets.


Here's hoping... so we don't have to listen to their griping anymore.

RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2012, 03:25
by hotrampphotography
Just to be clear,

The media will never stop griping about any acquisition.

I really wish you'd choose your words a little more carefully, as it would appear you are more than happy to muddy the many waters that are at play here.

RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2012, 17:21
by luke_sandoz
HMS happens in Canada

Hyperventilating Media Syndrome

RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2012, 00:25
by spazsinbad
Interesting full quote here (I'm glad that the Canadian Press are so good) :-)

F-35 purchase undecided, Fantino says By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Mar 13, 2012
Backing out of purchase 'not as yet discounted,' says procurement minister

http://www.cbc.ca/m/rich/politics/story ... -f35s.html

"Canada could reconsider an agreement to buy new F-35 joint strike fighter jets, Julian Fantino suggested 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 [backing out of the program?]. 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 also said the government won't decide on the purchase until it knows how much it will cost.

"We will be expending the allotted amount, $9 billion, for the acquisition if we are going to go there," he said...."

Canadian Press [style/culture of reporting] seems to be influenced by UK Press which also influences Oz Press - anything for a laugh (to sell newspapers). Serious problems today with 'phone hacking scandal in UK' shows the deplorable lack of ethics in some newspaper reporting over there "We don't just report news - We make news!" :twisted:

RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2012, 09:22
by spazsinbad
At last a NON-Canadian reporter gives some perspective...

Canadian fixation on the F-35 March 14, 2012 Bob Cox

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk ... -f-35.html

"...From a practical point of view this reporter didn't see all that much in the remarks of Associate Defense Minister Julian Fantino to get very excited about. Not exactly a tectonic shift in policy. A shift in words, a little back tracking of the kind political figures do all the time, but that's about it...."

More always at the jump so go there.

RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 15 Mar 2012, 11:02
by m
As well as in other countries, Australia, Norway, the Netherlands or other countries, the F35 is mainly a political fight being elected.
A quite easy item as a political party in the opposition.
Either they don’t mention, nor explain what an alternative, all included, “really” will cost.

In fact most politicians don’t care that much what’s the best for the military, the country or what jet is important for a pilot to survive.
They only care for what’s the best for their party (voters) or what’s best for themselves.


The media often are not that much different, it’s an easy item to write about (selling a newspaper). Especially about the price of a jet, during a financial crisis and less defense budgets.

Mainly the public is not much interested in a jet, they only will read what ordering a specific jet will cost. When the media does not also publish in their articles the real costs of other jets, public in general hardly will have any idea the price of such a jet (F35), when compared, is not that extremely high as is seems.

One will not read in such media articles, for example the offer to the Swiss by Dassault, almost $200 million per Rafale. Even a Gripen is not that cheap, as well as leasing is quite expensive.
Don’t hear politicians, nay sayers, in Canada or somewhere else, about an alternative as for example a Rafale ($196.8 million) or a Typhoon (most expensive, Swiss offer).

RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2012, 08:41
by spazsinbad
A Blogger has at it:

Oh Canada! Minister Fantino’s F-35 Statement Thursday, March 15, 2012

"What was said vs. what the jungle drums ‘report’..."

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com.au/ ... -f-35.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ncZ0VOa46Sc/T ... F-Flag.jpg

RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2012, 13:33
by duplex
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... elays.html

Canada is not alone, others will follow soon .. The F-35 is doomed !!! its time for all partners to abandon this ill-fated project and find an alternative.

RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 16 Mar 2012, 17:15
by cynical175
Lockheed should heed the 14 rules from their famous designer Dutch Kelly.


Kelly Johnson's 14 Rules of Management

1.The Skunk Works manager must be delegated practically complete control of his program in all aspects. He should report to a division president or higher.

2.Strong but small project offices must be provided both by the military and industry.

3.The number of people having any connection with the project must be restricted in an almost vicious manner. Use a small number of good people (10% to 25% compared to the so-called normal systems).

4.A very simple drawing and drawing release system with great flexibility for making changes must be provided.

5.There must be a minimum number of reports required, but important work must be recorded thoroughly.

6.There must be a monthly cost review covering not only what has been spent and committed but also projected costs to the conclusion of the program. Don't have the books ninety days late and don't surprise the customer with sudden overruns.

7.The contractor must be delegated and must assume more than normal responsibility to get good vendor bids for subcontract on the project. Commercial bid procedures are very often better than military ones.

8.The inspection system as currently used by the Skunk Works, which has been approved by both the Air Force and Navy, meets the intent of existing military requirements and should be used on new projects. Push more basic inspection responsibility back to subcontractors and vendors. Don't duplicate so much inspection.

9.The contractor must be delegated the authority to test his final product in flight. He can and must test it in the initial stages. If he doesn't, he rapidly loses his competency to design other vehicles.

10. The specifications applying to the hardware must be agreed to well in advance of contracting. The Skunk Works practice of having a specification section stating clearly which important military specification items will not knowingly be complied with and reasons therefore is highly recommended.

11. Funding a program must be timely so that the contractor doesn't have to keep running to the bank to support government projects.

12. There must be mutual trust between the military project organization and the contractor with very close cooperation and liaison on a day-to-day basis. This cuts down misunderstanding and correspondence to an absolute minimum.

13. Access by outsiders to the project and its personnel must be strictly controlled by appropriate security measures.

14. Because only a few people will be used in engineering and most other areas, ways must be provided to reward good performance by pay not based on the number of personnel supervised.

Re: RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2012, 16:23
by duplex
[quote="cynical175"]Lockheed should heed the 14 rules from their famous designer Dutch Kelly.


Kelly Johnson's 14 Rules of Management









Is this the man who created the U2 and SR-71??

Re: RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2012, 16:58
by m
duplex wrote:http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/133610/f_35-performance-may-be-cut-to-avoid-further-delays.html

Canada is not alone, others will follow soon .. The F-35 is doomed !!! its time for all partners to abandon this ill-fated project and find an alternative.



The F35 doomed? Every year some fanatic predicts this about earth as well :roll:

What alternative? A Rafale? Offer to the Swiss almost $200 million per Rafale

Typhoon, this jet dit cost the UK some $199 million per Typhoon.
The project started in 80th and still the jet is not a multirole. Till so far, a UK Typhoon can drop only one bomb type, 1000 lbs, with help of a Tornado. Expected being a full multirole in 2018.

(In 2030 all the UK Typhoons will have been phased out).


A F18 E/F or a Growler? Till so far only 24 have been exported. Ask the Aussies what these 24 F18's did cost them.

Re: RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2012, 17:26
by delvo
duplex wrote:Is this the man who created the U2 and SR-71??
No such individual exists. But Kelley was the boss of the teams that created both of those places. His rules for how to manage the place are quoted in the book "Skunk Works", written by his successor in that role, Ben Rich, who was a lower-ranking member of the U-2 and Blackbird teams.

Rich took over after Kelley retired. Rich's first project as the boss was F-117, which Kelley was furious about at first, thinking it would be a huge mistake. He died before F-22 came along, but Rich was still in charge for that and still trying to work by his old rules. The problem, which Rich goes into in the book, is that a place like Skunk Works only works well if it's allowed freedom to let the engineers tinker in peace, and the government (along with the main Lock-Mart office) has spent decades eroding that independence by sending in always-growing hordes of vultures to hang over them, nitpick and second-guess every move they make, impose piles of pointless bureaucratic rules, and demand that everything that's been done be undone and then redone... which reduces doing things Kelley's old way to pretty much just a dream and is the cause of the now-familiar delays and cost increases.

Re: RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2012, 19:05
by neptune
duplex wrote:.. others will follow soon .. The F-35 is doomed ...find an alternative.


They may consider the CGS Hawk Arrow and the second seater can even carry 10 lbs. of rocks. So much for tactical aircraft, Chicken Little! :) :lol:

Re: RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2012, 19:24
by southernphantom
m wrote:
duplex wrote:http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/133610/f_35-performance-may-be-cut-to-avoid-further-delays.html

Canada is not alone, others will follow soon .. The F-35 is doomed !!! its time for all partners to abandon this ill-fated project and find an alternative.



The F35 doomed? Every year some fanatic predicts this about earth as well :roll:

What alternative? A Rafale? Offer to the Swiss almost $200 million per Rafale

Typhoon, this jet dit cost the UK some $199 million per Typhoon.
The project started in 80th and still the jet is not a multirole. Till so far, a UK Typhoon can drop only one bomb type, 1000 lbs, with help of a Tornado. Expected being a full multirole in 2018.

(In 2030 all the UK Typhoons will have been phased out).


A F18 E/F or a Growler? Till so far only 24 have been exported. Ask the Aussies what these 24 F18's did cost them.


Dare I even ASK what the Brits are going to use for TACAIR after 2030?? The Euros lack the foresight to schedule programs that will produce an aircraft approximately when needed (and the ability to make the one they have work...), so is the RAF going to be stuck with a few squadrons of F-35s as its only survivable TACAIR?? Sigh... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

As for the RCAF, the lack of Super Hornet exports IMO doesn't mean all that much, but the aircraft would be somewhat suited to their requirements. However, I personally believe that an F-15E derivative would be better-suited to Canada's huge area. The drawback to this is that IIRC the Boeing line is tied up for quite a while thanks to our Saudi buddies. Make of that delay what you will.

Re: RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2012, 20:37
by m
southernphantom wrote:
Dare I even ASK what the Brits are going to use for TACAIR after 2030?? The Euros lack the foresight to schedule programs that will produce an aircraft approximately when needed (and the ability to make the one they have work...), so is the RAF going to be stuck with a few squadrons of F-35s as its only survivable TACAIR?? Sigh... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Not only the UK, but Germany as well when their Tornado’s and Phantoms have been phased out. What will the Germans do as replacement?

An enormous lack of A2G capability in Europe will exist, when these major European countries will not replace with enough A2G number capable jets
Especially when the UK probably will order less F35’s.

107 UK Typhoons and an x number F35’s (50, who knows?) will be left in the UK.

As you wrote, what are they going to after 2030? Another number F35’s?
Or may be ordering the new to develop jet by the US? If … this jet will be exported by the US?

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2012, 21:18
by stobiewan
I believe the RAF chucked their pile of change assigned for the FOAS (Future Offensive Avionic System) into the F35C buy so that's an indicator that the UK's future lies with Tiffy plus F35C.

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 13:26
by duplex
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/ ... story.html

It seems that Canada is going to back out of F-35 .... Again the Super Hornet and the Rafale are the only altenatives.

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 14:59
by hotrampphotography
duplex wrote:It seems that Canada is going to back out of F-35 .... Again the Super Hornet and the Rafale are the only altenatives.


It's an op ed piece, nothing more.

Should we go Super Hornet, based on Australia's purchase of 24 for $4.5B, then I wonder how many we'd be able to get for the full $9B budged for it?

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 15:35
by duplex
hotrampphotography wrote:
duplex wrote:It seems that Canada is going to back out of F-35 .... Again the Super Hornet and the Rafale are the only altenatives.


It's an op ed piece, nothing more.

Should we go Super Hornet, based on Australia's purchase of 24 for $4.5B, then I wonder how many we'd be able to get for the full $9B budged for it?



For Canada the SH would be the better choice despite the fact that it is inferior to Rafale . Commonalities with Hornets and AMRAAM+AIM-9X combo would be decisive factors.

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 15:43
by hotrampphotography
duplex wrote:For Canada the SH would be the better choice despite the fact that it is inferior to Rafale . Commonalities with Hornets and AMRAAM+AIM-9X combo would be decisive factors.


Inferior to Rafale...I guess I beg to differ.

Agree with your commonality factor.

Back to my original question...how many could we afford to get with the amount allotted?

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 16:04
by duplex
hotrampphotography wrote:
duplex wrote:For Canada the SH would be the better choice despite the fact that it is inferior to Rafale . Commonalities with Hornets and AMRAAM+AIM-9X combo would be decisive factors.


Inferior to Rafale...I guess I beg to differ.

Agree with your commonality factor.

Back to my original question...how many could we afford to get with the amount allotted?

Actually I don't know but you should be able to get 65 fighters and most important of all, Boeing would deliver them very fast ! ..I think the amount alloted is irrelevant at this stage as 65 F-35's in the end would cost Canada far more than 9 billion dollars
at least twice the amount. If the F-35 ever will be available before 2020 is of course another question. The SH and the RAFALE are now ! I am 100% certain that both Royal Navy and CANADA will abandon this stupid F-35 program and buy whatever they consider as the alternative.. Wait and see..

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 16:14
by SpudmanWP
at least twice the amount

And this bit of fortune telling would be coming from?

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 16:24
by hotrampphotography
duplex wrote:Actually I don't know but you should be able to get 65 fighters and most important of all, Boeing would deliver them very fast ! ..I think the amount alloted is irrelevant at this stage as 65 F-35's in the end would cost Canada far more than 9 billion dollars at least twice the amount. If the F-35 ever will be available before 2020 is of course another question. The SH and the RAFALE are now ! I am 100% certain that both Royal Navy and CANADA will abandon this stupid F-35 program and buy whatever they consider as the alternative.. Wait and see..


If you think that the amount alloted is irrelevant, then why not wait and purchase the F-35, even if as you say it would be at least twice the amount (which, by the way, is absolute bullshit)?

As for you 100% certainty of abandoning this program, if that is the same percentage of certainty you have in the price of the -35A, then I won't hold my breath believing you to be accurate...

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 18:30
by sufaviper
Doesn't Boeing have a back log of 100+ F-18, and all the Saudi F-15's? I'm not sure they have a lot of extra room on the line at this time, so "Boeing would deliver them very fast !" is probably false too. Actually with the F-35 line ready and equiped for ~40/year, I think it is the highest rate Fighter line in the world.

Sufa Viper

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 18:46
by hotrampphotography
Big B announced on Wednesday that it had completed early delivery of the Navy’s second-to-last multi-year batch of Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growlers — 257 airplanes — and that it’s on the glide slope to continue right on through into the final multi-year. That would involve another 66 Es and Fs and 58 Gs, “to be purchased through 2013.” Under today’s deals, including existing international orders, that would mean Boeing would deliver its last jet in 2015, said company spokesman Philip Carder.


Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/02/23/the-e ... z1pru8P2XA

DoDBuzz.com

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 19:07
by bjr1028
duplex wrote:
hotrampphotography wrote:
duplex wrote:It seems that Canada is going to back out of F-35 .... Again the Super Hornet and the Rafale are the only altenatives.


It's an op ed piece, nothing more.

Should we go Super Hornet, based on Australia's purchase of 24 for $4.5B, then I wonder how many we'd be able to get for the full $9B budged for it?



For Canada the SH would be the better choice despite the fact that it is inferior to Rafale . Commonalities with Hornets and AMRAAM+AIM-9X combo would be decisive factors.


In air to air combat, yes. In other areas like range and payload, its superior.

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 19:37
by duplex
[quote="hotrampphotography As for you 100% certainty of abandoning this program, if that is the same percentage of certainty you have in the price of the -35A, then I won't hold my breath believing you to be accurate...[/quote]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/stealth-f ... d=15970732
Believe what you want dude, I couldn't care less the F-35 is a dead end !

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/ ... liticsNews

More cost growth would cut F-35 buy !! and the basic principle of economics say ' the lower the production,the higher the price.. right??? anyway if you can afford to wait until 2018 to see if this truck on two wings will be available, so why not?
your choice.


http://gizmodo.com/5895483/pentagon-tri ... y-disaster

It looks more and more like the F-35 is going to end up like the Comanche..

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 19:40
by duplex
[quote="bjr1028 quote]

In air to air combat, yes. In other areas like range and payload, its superior.





I'm confused ...which one is superior and where?

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 21:45
by 1st503rdsgt
duplex wrote: If the F-35 ever will be available before 2020 is of course another question. The SH and the RAFALE are now ! I am 100% certain that both Royal Navy and CANADA will abandon this stupid F-35 program and buy whatever they consider as the alternative.. Wait and see..


If they dump the F-35 for something else, they're not gonna think the it's so stupid when they come up against it at Red Flag 2021.

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 22:52
by maus92
sufaviper wrote:Doesn't Boeing have a back log of 100+ F-18, and all the Saudi F-15's? I'm not sure they have a lot of extra room on the line at this time, so "Boeing would deliver them very fast !" is probably false too. Actually with the F-35 line ready and equiped for ~40/year, I think it is the highest rate Fighter line in the world.

Sufa Viper


Boeing can surge up to 54 E/F/G Super Hornets per year without requiring more tooling. The max it can produce per year is 72, and the minimum sustainable rate is 24. The Navy is taking delivery of 40 in 2012, 43 in 2013, 40 in 2014, 38 in 2015. Clearly there is capacity to produce more units.

Unread postPosted: 22 Mar 2012, 23:48
by stobiewan
duplex wrote:http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Fighter+procurement+unwinding/6334578/story.html

It seems that Canada is going to back out of F-35 .... Again the Super Hornet and the Rafale are the only altenatives.


This single line should tell you how wide of the mark the author's understanding of the technology is:

"The Rafale, like the F-35, comes with radar-evading stealth technology, and, insiders say, could be built almost entirely in Canada. "

Rafale has some very rudimentary signal management applied to it in terms of RAM and some shaping of the inlets etc. It does not have anything like the "radar-evading technology" present in the F35.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2012, 00:22
by SpudmanWP
Could you imagine the cost of creating an entire assembly process in Canada and how that would jack up the price of the Rafale (which is already more than the F-35 that Canada will be buying).

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2012, 01:31
by pushoksti
Canada isn't buying a Eurocanard, it's that simple. Logistics and politics alone would make that purchase very difficult. Your average joe might approve it because a Eurofighter or Rafale is "cooler" but they are clueless as to what happens behind the scenes. IMO, if the F35 doesn't get cancelled, which right now doesn't look like it will happen, then Canada and the parter nations will buy it. Costs will only go down for nations buying them, they don't pay for the testing. Remember, we are budgeted to $9B for the program and it doesn't matter what we buy, we will spend that money. If Canada was to buy $9B worth of Eurocanard or SH, no one would care, yet the F35 seems to get so much scrutiny because of the intense negative media coverage.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2012, 01:33
by hb_pencil
I've said this before, I'm utterly astounded how the Cyclone project gets a complete pass when the program has ballooned to double the cost, and yet the F-35 is a target for all the media;s derision.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2012, 01:40
by pushoksti
hb_pencil wrote:I've said this before, I'm utterly astounded how the Cyclone project gets a complete pass when the program has ballooned to double the cost, and yet the F-35 is a target for all the media;s derision.


It's easy to target a fighter, everyone knows everything about them, right? People won't discuss helicopters because they don't know anything about them.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2012, 03:33
by madrat
If Canada really was thinking they'd have snatched up the Lightning F.3's from the UK before they got scrapped. A slep would have got them double the original hours and they were a good fit for the mission. They are unlikely to go for the last two dozen that the Saudis are trading back to the UK for Typhoons. Shame.

Germany doesn't have many F-4F ICE left. Those would have worked pretty good for the climate.

I was thinking. For approximately $9 billion the Saudis ordered 60 Typhoons. Why wouldn't second hand Typhoons work?

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2012, 04:06
by maus92
pushoksti wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:I've said this before, I'm utterly astounded how the Cyclone project gets a complete pass when the program has ballooned to double the cost, and yet the F-35 is a target for all the media;s derision.


It's easy to target a fighter, everyone knows everything about them, right? People won't discuss helicopters because they don't know anything about them.


Or perhaps, because the F-35 is a strike fighter vs. an interceptor. An interceptor is defensive in nature, whereas the F-35 mission (strike) is projecting power.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2012, 17:00
by duplex
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -cost.html


Could the Australian decision have an impact on Canada ??

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2012, 17:47
by SpudmanWP
I blame Big "O" and his arbitrary pressure on the DoD to cut half a trillion. It's time to lead.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2012, 18:25
by southernphantom
madrat wrote:If Canada really was thinking they'd have snatched up the Lightning F.3's from the UK before they got scrapped. A slep would have got them double the original hours and they were a good fit for the mission. They are unlikely to go for the last two dozen that the Saudis are trading back to the UK for Typhoons. Shame.

Germany doesn't have many F-4F ICE left. Those would have worked pretty good for the climate.

I was thinking. For approximately $9 billion the Saudis ordered 60 Typhoons. Why wouldn't second hand Typhoons work?


Wiki says that the Luftwaffe has 45 F-4Fs operational. I wonder if Canada could get a stay on scrapping them until the lot are retired and can be transferred. Frankly, these would be an excellent interim interceptor.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2012, 20:20
by hotrampphotography
Canada doesn't need an interceptor.

We also don't need a bombtruck.

We need a multirole aircraft, and the only realistic option is the F-35A. Whatever the government decides to do to fill the void between when our current CF-18 fleet is set to retire and acquiring the F-35 will be just that...a filler.

And we won't be at Red Flag, you'll be coming to Maple Flag. If anything you'll see our continued presence at Combat Archer @ Tyndall AFB.

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2012, 01:20
by m
stobiewan wrote:
duplex wrote:http://www.edmontonjournal.com/opinion/Fighter+procurement+unwinding/6334578/story.html

It seems that Canada is going to back out of F-35 .... Again the Super Hornet and the Rafale are the only altenatives.


This single line should tell you how wide of the mark the author's understanding of the technology is:

"The Rafale, like the F-35, comes with radar-evading stealth technology, and, insiders say, could be built almost entirely in Canada. "

Rafale has some very rudimentary signal management applied to it in terms of RAM and some shaping of the inlets etc. It does not have anything like the "radar-evading technology" present in the F35.


The Rafale is more expensive. Building in Canada? This means, investing probably at least one $ 1 billion in a production line and will surely be less than 65 jets.

Plus Canada will need to order different armament as well

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2012, 01:46
by m
pushoksti wrote: If Canada was to buy $9B worth of Eurocanard or SH, no one would care, yet the F35 seems to get so much scrutiny because of the intense negative media coverage.


Agree with that. Not only in Canada, as well as in other countries.
A lot of Nay sayers seem to ignore the high costs of other jet types and how problematic development has been.
The Rafale, still only some 81 in service :roll:
Typhoon, operational, but in 2018 expected to be multirole. Though, no complaining ... either what the F35 concerns .... :evil:

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2012, 15:31
by duplex
The Rafale is more expensive. Building in Canada? This means, investing probably at least one $ 1 billion in a production line and will surely be less than 65 jets.

Plus Canada will need to order different armament as well..





A local assembly line for 60 fighters makes sense which could easily be integrated into the existing production lines of the Bombardier with a little modification. Remember DASSAULT in France produces Rafale and Falcon business jets under the same roof side by side. I billion dollar for assembly line ?? I don't think so..

Anyway ,if Canada decides to cancel the F-35, the Super Hornet would be the first choice.

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2012, 18:45
by m
duplex wrote:A local assembly line for 60 fighters makes sense which could easily be integrated into the existing production lines of the Bombardier with a little modification. Remember DASSAULT in France produces Rafale and Falcon business jets under the same roof side by side. I billion dollar for assembly line ?? I don't think so


As an example of a production line, Italy some $1 billion investment in their production line
Not that sure, but Japan needs to invest roughly a same amount.

existing production lines of the Bombardier with a little modification?
Don’t think it will be that easy. Suppose this kind of thing is very complicated.

Fokker, as an example, did produce several airline aircraft types at that time (20th century), Fokker 50, 60, 70 and Fokker 100, but setting up a completely new production line for the F16 was needed.
At that time, they produced 213 F16’s for the Netherlands, as well as some 70 for Norway.
Don’t have a number, but investment in this production line wasn’t cheap.


As well as, will it be cost effective for 65 jets?
The F35 is a very complicated aircraft, as well as new advanced production techniques will need new advanced production tools as well.

After reducing Italian numbers they need production of Dutch and Norwegian F35’s to do this still cost effective. I can be wrong, but remember something from an article.
Secondly, the Italians do have specialized production personal available, switching from Typhoon to F35 production (F35, some 10,000?).

Production F35: Italy (90), Norway (52-56), Netherlands (60-85?). Plus may be others, near future?

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2012, 19:23
by m
duplex wrote: Anyway ,if Canada decides to cancel the F-35, the Super Hornet would be the first choice.


Would be amazed Canada would cancel the F35. Almost every country threatened to do so, but no one ever did.
Other types, as the Rafale and Typhoon are very expensive as well.

When did the F18 E/F became operational: 2001? Till so far exported to only one country and until 2012 not more than 24 exported.
Even a Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen C/D were more succesful.

There are too many competitors for the F18 to become an export success, especially when the F35 will be in full production.


Basically the design of the F18 goes back to 1965:
The aircraft's main design elements date to early 1965, from the internal Northrop project N-300. Evolved into the P-530 Cobra.
The P-530's wing planform and nose section was similar to the F-5. First flight 1974. (Quoted from wikipedia)

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2012, 20:00
by m
Part of a really funny comment about F35 debates
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/04/8494/

Do read especially "The Future" and "Conclusions"
Quite long to quote the Future, but quoted Conclusions

Conclusions
The Joint Strike Fighter program has – unfortunately like so many other projects – suffered from being poorly planned, poorly conceived, poorly budgeted, and from a not inconsiderable amount of lies, damned lies, and poorly researched statistics.
If you honestly believe this program will not go ahead now then there is probably something wrong with you.
But chin up my friends. The F-35 is not as bad as the haters make out. It may not be the silver bullet that its mouth-foaming supporters would have you believe, but it’s not a bad bit of kit overall.

And look on the bright side, as the colonialist’s might say “it’s going to make a kick-ass Airfix model!”

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2012, 20:51
by spazsinbad
"The F35 Lightening II" Pity 'Chris.B' cannot spell... date should be 01 April 2011 instead of 11th. :D

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2012, 21:17
by outlaw162
Lightening....

making your wallet weigh less.

:D

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2012, 21:47
by m
This for example is one I did like in his comment:

Then we have the weapons issue. People scream blue murder at the top of their voices about the fact that an F-35 can only hold four air-to-air weapons in it’s internal bay, meanwhile the skies are roaming with hostile aircraft carrying at least 8 each. When any has the temerity to suggest that the F-35 could carry external weapons to, we’re told that this “compromises the stealth characteristics”.

The trouble with this argument is simple; the term “compromises” is often confused with “turns it into a Boeing 747”. For some reason nobody stops to ask how big the Typhoon carrying 8 weapons externally would appear on radar compared to an F-35 carrying four weapons externally and four internally. Yes it would lose some of its stealth characteristics, but it would still fundamentally be a difficult aircraft to detect and track on radar.

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2012, 17:45
by river_otter
m wrote:When any has the temerity to suggest that the F-35 could carry external weapons to, we’re told that this “compromises the stealth characteristics”.

The trouble with this argument is simple; the term “compromises” is often confused with “turns it into a Boeing 747”. For some reason nobody stops to ask how big the Typhoon carrying 8 weapons externally would appear on radar compared to an F-35 carrying four weapons externally and four internally. Yes it would lose some of its stealth characteristics, but it would still fundamentally be a difficult aircraft to detect and track on radar.


Even funnier, it's often the same people who say an F/A-18SE (carrying two weapons in a stealthy pod) turns it into a real stealth aircraft.

That pod is an interesting development though, starting from something that really is a stealth aircraft in the first place. Boeing claims the SE's pod is actually less draggy than two external missiles on pylons, in addition to being stealthy. So why can't the F-35 carry a stealthy pod on each wing and get 8 missiles without seriously compromising stealth? The F-35 (B/C) itself carries a cannon pod that doesn't compromise stealth. It seems to me the main decrement from external stores, if it matters enough to pay for the pods, is going to be increased drag leading to decreased speed and range, not a significant compromise to stealth.

Unread postPosted: 25 Mar 2012, 17:51
by SpudmanWP
I've had that thought too.

Since the pod was designed for 2xAAM and 2xJDAMs... I wonder if it could fit a JASSM or AARGM?

RE: Re: RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2012, 04:37
by chrisrt
So ah, when does the supposed superior weapon systems come into play? I mean even if it had the RCS of an F/A-18x shouldn’t it have the upper hand?

RE: Re: RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2012, 21:50
by luke_sandoz
The pinheads in the media and the various fear mongering "experts" can whip up the occasional frenzy, but smart folks don't care much about that.

Smart folks do this.

http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vol12/no2/18-wilner-eng.asp

RE: Re: RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2012, 05:13
by spazsinbad
Canada likes to keep in the news - amazing development if predictions come about. [And it ain't April Fools Day no more.] :-)

F-35 program to get overhaul after scathing AG report CBC News Posted: Apr 2 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... eport.html

"Canada will re-examine the F-35 jet fighter program following the release of an auditor general's report tomorrow that slams the Defence Department regarding its compliance with procurement policies.

CBC News has learned that Auditor General Michael Ferguson will focus his criticism on the air force and on procurement officials inside the Defence Department.

His report is expected to say that officials inside the Defence Department misled government ministers and did not provide accurate information about everything from the cost of the Lockheed Martin fighters to the delivery date.

The government is expected to strip the Defence Department of its responsibility for the program and set up a special secretariat of deputy ministers inside the Public Works Department to manage the program...."

RE: Re: RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2012, 14:02
by luke_sandoz
Nothing new then from Canada. The F-35 is still the chosen platform and the government has created a buying layer to insulate themselves from criticism.

Lots of media sturm & drang but business as usual under the kimono for the Canadian F-35 program.

RE: Re: RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2012, 15:03
by spazsinbad
Ah So - Kabuki Theatre! :D

RE: Re: RE: Canada May Back Out of F-35 Purchase: Minister

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2012, 16:26
by m
Not only Canada, but as well for other level partners.

Budget Canada: C$21.8 billion (2010–2011)

Investment: $9 billion
Over 30 years: $300 million per year

Investment $9 billion in 2012 dollars. Canada in fact will have invested $300 million per year, over 30 years.

With a total budget of C$21.8 billion (in 2010–2011). Investment new equipment percentage (?).
The Canadian Defence budget in 2040-2050 will be sky high, in dollars, compared with 2010-2011

Still, over 30 years Canada will have invested some $300 million per year, ordering the F35. While the Canadian defence budget, in dollars, will have raised enormously.

Not sure what term Canada wants to pay for the F35. Norway probably 30 years, Dutch, some 10 years (?). Canada for instance 15 years, so the last 15 of 30 years the F35 will be a bargain
Last 15 years; Inflation, a raised defence budget in dollars, while the F35 has been paid for.


The high US figure over 55 years can’t be compared with Canadian figures. Canada does not pay more than they have invested in (development).
Infrastructure costs for the F35 are minimal for Canada compared with the US. As well as other costs

Compare as well the price of an F16, or F18, has been paid for in 1976-1980.
In the future. we will look back to the F35 as a cheap jet, compared with the prices of new jets in 2040-2050.
Wouldn’t be amazed prices, some +$500 million per jet?

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2012, 18:51
by johnwill
outlaw162 wrote:Lightening....

making your wallet weigh less.

:D


Well, maybe your coin holder, as the US F-35 will have a per capita flyaway cost of around 25 cents. :shock:

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2012, 19:10
by luke_sandoz
link the budget report from the auditor - pretty ordinary stuff, life goes on.

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

"2.78 The Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program is unique. In this context, National Defence, as the lead department, exercised due diligence in managing Canada’s participation in the Program. National Defence managed industrial participation well (together with Industry Canada), identified and communicated risks and mitigation strategies related to JSF Program participation, and assessed options before signing the 2006 memorandum of understanding (MOU), committing Canada to the third phase of the JSF Program (production, sustainment, and follow-on development.) However, National Defence did not fully inform decision makers of the implications of participation in the JSF Program for the acquisition process. In some cases, documented analysis did not exist to support decisions."

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2012, 21:07
by hb_pencil
Well it was a bit worse than that. Basically they suggest that DND manipulated process and did not undertake a proper competition around 2009~2010. Its not the worst thing to say, DND does this frequently but with different tactics (like the C-130J).

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

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2012, 23:28
by count_to_10
johnwill wrote:
outlaw162 wrote:Lightening....

making your wallet weigh less.

:D


Well, maybe your coin holder, as the US F-35 will have a per capita flyaway cost of around 25 cents. :shock:

That puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2012, 23:58
by outlaw162
Well at least now I understand why Canada is doing away with the penny.

Eh.

:D

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2012, 00:08
by m
hb_pencil wrote:


Hb .. any idea what figure has been used?
$49.9 million in 2001 was $60.29 million in 2009, not $84.9 million.


A. 2001-2009
$49.90 million in 2001 had the same buying power as $60.29 million in 2009

Raise: $10.39 million


B. 2001-2009
$84.90 million in 2001 had the same buying power as $102.58 million in 2009

Raise: $17.68 million


Quote: Exhibit 2.2—Estimates for full production period of unit recurring flyaway costs increased from 2001 to 2009
The line graph shows the increase in flyaway costs from 2001 to 2009.
In October 2001, the flyaway costs were 49.9 million United States (US) dollars. The costs steadily increased to 84.9 million US dollars in December 2009.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/Engli ... 36466.html

Calculator:
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2012, 01:40
by cywolf32
Enough drama already. Buy it or move on.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2012, 04:30
by velocityvector
cywolf32 wrote:Enough drama already. Buy it or move on.


Drama sells ad space. It helps position politicians. The dull but hot anchorperson gets a job until the wrinkles set in. This one will persist until Bessy shrivels to a raisin from all the milking that inevitably will occur.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2012, 08:26
by hb_pencil
m wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:


Hb .. any idea what figure has been used?
$49.9 million in 2001 was $60.29 million in 2009, not $84.9 million.


A. 2001-2009
$49.90 million in 2001 had the same buying power as $60.29 million in 2009

Raise: $10.39 million


B. 2001-2009
$84.90 million in 2001 had the same buying power as $102.58 million in 2009

Raise: $17.68 million


Quote: Exhibit 2.2—Estimates for full production period of unit recurring flyaway costs increased from 2001 to 2009
The line graph shows the increase in flyaway costs from 2001 to 2009.
In October 2001, the flyaway costs were 49.9 million United States (US) dollars. The costs steadily increased to 84.9 million US dollars in December 2009.
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/Engli ... 36466.html

Calculator:
http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm



I don't... partly because its not a clear what they are talking about (though its not a Canadian figure but from the US project office). It might be the estimate of the REC of an F-35 in a the year the fighter is purchased... but then again we don't know what year they are using. What is clear is that it does not use base year, so inflationary increases are included, whether it be 2001 to 2009, or 2016 to 2020 (or whatever it was).

By the way M, I sent you a pm a few days ago.

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2012, 11:58
by duplex
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... eport.html


Never ending sensational revelations..Here is another one...

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2012, 14:17
by luke_sandoz
duplex . . . The Star is Canada's leading military hating newspaper, the house organ of the soft socialists and they hate the current government.

Just for context . . .

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2012, 04:01
by awsome
Canada should buy all remaining F-14D aircraft currently stored at AMARG as an interim replacement for its legacy Hornets. Intergrate AMRAAM and upgrade the engines and radar. This aircraft has the speed and range to patrol the great expances of the north and would be a good fit for shooting down cruise missiles.

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2012, 05:36
by archeman
awsome wrote:Canada should buy all remaining F-14D aircraft currently stored at AMARG as an interim replacement for its legacy Hornets. Intergrate AMRAAM and upgrade the engines and radar. This aircraft has the speed and range to patrol the great expances of the north and would be a good fit for shooting down cruise missiles.


The only reason the USN could keep those craft running fairly well was a deeply integrated and committed maintenance effort. Even with that dedication the mean time between failure was pretty high compared to their replacement 4+Gen aircraft. Now that a few years have passed and that expertise has been fading away you are looking at a serious restart for a 70s era design. You would be looking at a long list of avionics ground up investment, not only on the aircraft itself but for test, depot and supply chain support. Yet another reason for Canada to hate us but it would provide military haters a field day of new things to feed their press releases with.

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2012, 06:52
by spazsinbad
'ground up unvestment'? Yep. Shredded more likely: "In July 2007, the remaining American F-14s were shredded to ensure that any parts could not be acquired."

VIDEO: F-14 Tomcat Shredder http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W7pph9KhYY
"Uploaded by intrudera6 on Dec 31, 2007
Sad sight of F-14s being cut up...."
________________________________

U.S. to shred F-14s, deny Iran any parts By Sharon Theimer Associated Press July 3 2007

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6801 ... parts.html

"WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to destroy its dozens of retired F-14 fighter jets to deny Iran a source for desperately needed spare parts, a dramatic move though one that national security experts say is of more symbolic than practical value.

Within a day, a $38 million fighter jet that once soared as a showpiece of U.S. airpower can be reduced to shreds of twisted metal at the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., the military's aircraft cemetery. Last month, a contractor finished the first phase of the effort, shredding roughly two dozen....

...At last count, the military's boneyard in Arizona held 165 Tomcats, believed to be the only ones left out of 633 produced for the Navy. The others were scavenged for parts to keep others flying, went to museums or crashed, said a spokeswoman for the air base, Teresa Vanden-Heuvel.

The Navy plans to destroy all the remaining jets, Lt. Bashon Mann said.

A St. Louis-based company, TRI-Rinse, won a three-year, $3.7 million contract to render surplus equipment useless for military purposes. The work includes the recent demolition of 23 Tomcats in Arizona, accounting for about $900,000 of the contract. The military is considering using the same process on its other F-14s.

The company has developed portable shredding machinery so the Pentagon can have sensitive items destroyed on a base instead of shipping them long distances to be shredded...."

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2012, 16:05
by duplex
Can the Iranian Tomcats still fly ??

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2012, 17:03
by awsome
I know we are way of topic now... but yes the Iranian Tomcats still fly. I had read recently that AMARG still had about 50 F-14D Tomcats left, but they may have been destroyed by now. I was not really that serious, just wishful thinking.

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2012, 05:38
by jslugman
I did an overflight of AMARG in June 2011 and there were 8 F-14s in section 22/24. I didn't see any in the "museum hold" area section 20.

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2012, 07:30
by madrat
If Canada looked for alternatives why wouldn't they honestly look at Gripen NG with Meteor?

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2012, 08:01
by 1st503rdsgt
madrat wrote:If Canada looked for alternatives why wouldn't they honestly look at Gripen NG with Meteor?


I dare them to do it. I'd love to see them go up against the F-35 at Red Flag 2021, assuming they'd even have their NGs by then (which they probably wouldn't).

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2012, 08:49
by hb_pencil
madrat wrote:If Canada looked for alternatives why wouldn't they honestly look at Gripen NG with Meteor?


No stealth and a flyaway cost that rivals that of the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2012, 18:36
by m
Saab expected to sell 400 Gripens and 500 Gripens NG
Sounds swell flying in five countries, but till so far Saab did sell only 38 Gripens
The other 24 are leased ones. Surely not a success.

Who will fly, order a Gripen NG?
Can’t mention a country, countries Canada will fly with on a mission, who will order a Gripen NG.
Not a best option for Canada. As well there probably will be only a few countries, if the Gripen NG will be build/exported, who ever will fly a Gripen NG.
The jet can be considered as a kind of a F16 and therefore is not an improvement. In that case Canada could consider an F16 as well.

In comparison both jets, Gripen NG and F35, are based on export expectations. The Gripen NG still has “probably” only one customer after all these years.
Compared with the F35, the F35 project started with at least eight customers. With an expectation of several other possible customers.
The Gripen NG project was/is based on hopes and dreams, while this is not the case concerning the F35.

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2012, 19:36
by alloycowboy
@M the problem with the Gripen and the F-16 as far as Canada is concerned is its short range.

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2012, 19:50
by SpudmanWP
I went back and looks at the docs provided from the CA government RE: the F-35. They have ALWAYS referred to it in a 20 year cycle.

Why are some acting like this is news now?

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2012, 19:54
by hb_pencil
alloycowboy wrote:@M the problem with the Gripen and the F-16 as far as Canada is concerned is its short range.


It was for the Gripen C, but not for the NG. However Saab acknowledged in parliamentary hearings that their fighter would not measure up to the F-35 in expeditionary warfare. Instead they were offering it as a complement to the F-35 for domestic ops.



One of the weird things was that they claimed an per hour cost of $4000 dollars... which is ridiculously low.

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2012, 20:03
by SpudmanWP
I wonder how the savings from lower cost of domestic ops for the NG would stack up against the increased cost of supporting two different airframes.

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2012, 22:59
by m
hb_pencil wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:@M the problem with the Gripen and the F-16 as far as Canada is concerned is its short range.


It was for the Gripen C, but not for the NG. However Saab acknowledged in parliamentary hearings that their fighter would not measure up to the F-35 in expeditionary warfare. Instead they were offering it as a complement to the F-35 for domestic ops.



One of the weird things was that they claimed an per hour cost of $4000 dollars... which is ridiculously low.


This low cost of the Gripen did intrigue me for some time. Compared with a F16, some US $22,000- NL $26,000. This is a difference too much.
All kind of hard stuff, like for instance tires etc., can’t be that much cheaper.

Fuel costs: In 2011, the price of jet fuel was $2.10 for one gallon.


May be an aspect could be, the Swedish Airforce has / had conscripts? This will result in lower flying costs per hour of a Gripen. But still does not declare a $4000 per flying hour.

Don’t have the actual number of flying hours per pilot per year, but Swedish pilots fly less than 180 hours (Nato) a year


Another aspect, Swedish Gripens did not fly that many flying hours
This table shows Gripen flying hours (Swedish Airforce)

Total Gripen flying hours, after first delivery:

June 1993: The first production aircraft (39.102) was delivered to FMV on 8 June.

2000: 12,000 flying hours

2004: 45,000 flying hours (142 Gripens)

2005: 60,000 flying hours (159 Gripens)

2007: 96,320 flying hours (193 Gripens)

2008: 100,000 flying hours > In eight 8 years: 88,000 flying hours (100,000 -12,000)

http://www.cemus.uu.se/dokument/projekt ... so_far.pdf

Quote: January 2008
28 January 2008 saw another significant milestone in the Gripen programme, when the Gripen fleet
soared past the historic 100,000 flying hour mark.



Compared with a Dutch deployment in Afghanistan (4, 6 and 8 F16's)
10 years: deployment Afghanistan
o Total flying hours: 27,000 flying hours

Calculated this figure:
o Flying hours per year: 2700
o F16 per year: 540 flying hours (average number F16’s: 5 F16’s)

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2012, 00:07
by muir
M - Conscription in Sweden is gone now. The last bunch where discharged last year. When I served back in the mid 90's the number we we're told where 40 000 sek an hour for the Gripen which apparently where about 60% of what the Viggen cost, we weren't told what was included in that price tag though. Today that would translate into 6000$ an hour. Obviously that is a faulty number, 15 years of inflation, the oil-price has at least quadrupled and I don't recall what the exchange rate might have been back then, what would 6000$ equal in mid-90's dollars? One of the core requirements in the development was that the new bird would be easy AND cheap to maintain. All routine stuff was to be handled by conscripts. On a couple of occasions some Norwegian Vipers where diverted to our airfield because of adverse weather conditions. I was never close to them but our officers, the techs who trained us on our aircraft, made it pretty clear they considered them logistical nightmares compared to what they were used to and what we worked with. Make of it what you will, I can't vouch for the truth, that insight was a bit above my pay grade to say the least. On the other hand no one had any reason to flat out lie, some questions were simply answered with a "that's classified".

As for Gripens for Canada, never gonna happen. IF they don't want the F-35 for some reason the logical choice would be the SuperBug. Closest ally flys them, minimal retraining, existing supply chain and so forth. I think they should do what the aussies did, a gap filler that takes some of the pressure of the existing air frames that can be upgraded to become Growlers when the F-35 replaces the old bugs.

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2012, 01:02
by outlaw162
I'm not so sure that some of this border discord and reticence is not a result of the fact that instead of "Coors Molson", we ended up with "Molson Coors".

I think there's some legitimate concern that down the line we could see Canadian Tire Lockmart instead of Lockmart Canadian Tire.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2012, 04:54
by spazsinbad
Conservative MP Hawn estimates CF-18 costs $12,000 less per flying hour than F-35 fighter jet
By TIM NAUMETZ 05/17/2012

"Conservative MP Laurie, who has been deeply involved with the $25-billion F-35 stealth fighter jet project, says the cost of operating Canada’s current fleet of CF-18 fighter jets is $12,000 less per flying hour for each plane than the current forecast costs for maintaining and operating the sophisticated F-35s.

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/politics/ ... f-35/30780


...Mr. Hawn told The Hill Times on Thursday, in an interview after Question Period, that the CF-18 operating costs are roughly $19,000 per flying hour.

“If you look at just the operating, fuel and oil (and other direct costs), it’s nineteen thousand, nineteen five, nineteen six, something like that,” said Mr. Hawn, a former CF-18 pilot....

...A U.S. Department of Defense report to Congress last March estimated the F-35A, the Air Force version of the F-35 that Canada would acquire, will cost $32,000 per flying hour for each aircraft to maintain, sustain and operate, 42 per cent more than the $22,000 per hour cost of maintaining and operating U.S. Air Force F-16s....

...Mr. Hawn dismissed the F-35 operating cost forecast as “all guess.”

“Do we know exactly what the F-35 is going to cost? No, it’s probably going to cost more per flying hour than the F-18, but we’re going to have a smaller fleet, I’m not sure how many flying hours we’re going to fly per year, probably less,” Mr. Hawn said.

“Those numbers on the F-35 are estimates, and that’s the fallacy, they’re trying to determine a lifecycle cost out to 30, 40 years. There’s no idea, what’s the cost of fuel, what’s the cost of diesel, what missions are we going to do, where are we going to wind up fighting. We have no clue,” he said.
...

Just more babble at the URL I reckon. :D

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2012, 09:09
by spazsinbad
Is this guy Canukian? :D

F-35 option: Produce the JACK-Fighter by Mark Miller Opinions May. 18, 2012

http://www.japantoday.com/category/opin ... ck-fighter

"Sixty-five “Next Generation” single-engine strike fighters are meant to replace 138 twin-engine multi-role Canadian Hornets (now down to 77), and would spend almost all of their time having their Klingon cloaking device repaired...."

I rest me case m'lud. Don't bother reading anything else. :D

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2012, 15:10
by luke_sandoz
Ya, Mark is Canadian and is an aviation journalist . . He's a go to guy for aviation stories and has done TV shows on Discovery.

This story he wrote is just completely whacko, most uncommon for Mark. He must be sick or something to dream up the concept, or somebody is whispering sweet stupidities in his ear after plying him with cheap booze.

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2012, 01:47
by pushoksti
Back in the real world, preparations are already underway for the F-35's arrival to Canada. These clowns can write all the crap they want, it will just end up on the floor for the dog to sh*t on.

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2012, 07:48
by archeman
The idea of Pacific Rim nations working together to build an aircraft isn't impossible, but it always helps to have a center of gravity before embarking on such a journey, and don't expect a short journey. Which of these partner nations gets to make the final call when a disagreement is reached?

The author gushed abit about the aim being a less expensive twin engine long range air superiority fighter (because that is what Canada needs). Is that really what S. Korea is looking for? And bringing up the Avro Arrow as a reason to bash the F-35A ( come on that old Arrow saw again )??? Evil Yankees invaded our leaders minds with high frequency control signals beamed from hidden transmitters in the heads on Mt Rushmore and caused us to cancel our rightful place as global leaders in aerospace aircraft construction.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 00:02
by 2meese
hb_pencil wrote:
madrat wrote:If Canada looked for alternatives why wouldn't they honestly look at Gripen NG with Meteor?


No stealth and a flyaway cost that rivals that of the F-35.


whaaat..The Gripen has a lower flyaway cost and cost per machine actually, Canadian jobs (optional) in production, sharing technology, Better allover performance, cheaper and easier to maintain, and let's not forget that it's ALOT more reliable and would be a perfect fit for canada since it could operate even from roadside bases. It might not have the internal munitions bay and be a pure "stealth" machine, but it's really small and hard to spot. Couple that with a greater range(exceeding 1300 k for combat patrol), higher speed and a much better manoeuverability and you'll have a great "bang for the buck" 4.5 gen multirole aircraft for the Canadian taxpayer.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 00:08
by 2meese
m wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:@M the problem with the Gripen and the F-16 as far as Canada is concerned is its short range.


It was for the Gripen C, but not for the NG. However Saab acknowledged in parliamentary hearings that their fighter would not measure up to the F-35 in expeditionary warfare. Instead they were offering it as a complement to the F-35 for domestic ops.



One of the weird things was that they claimed an per hour cost of $4000 dollars... which is ridiculously low.


This low cost of the Gripen did intrigue me for some time. Compared with a F16, some US $22,000- NL $26,000. This is a difference too much.
All kind of hard stuff, like for instance tires etc., can’t be that much cheaper.

Fuel costs: In 2011, the price of jet fuel was $2.10 for one gallon.


May be an aspect could be, the Swedish Airforce has / had conscripts? This will result in lower flying costs per hour of a Gripen. But still does not declare a $4000 per flying hour.

Don’t have the actual number of flying hours per pilot per year, but Swedish pilots fly less than 180 hours (Nato) a year


Another aspect, Swedish Gripens did not fly that many flying hours
This table shows Gripen flying hours (Swedish Airforce)

Total Gripen flying hours, after first delivery:

June 1993: The first production aircraft (39.102) was delivered to FMV on 8 June.

2000: 12,000 flying hours

2004: 45,000 flying hours (142 Gripens)

2005: 60,000 flying hours (159 Gripens)

2007: 96,320 flying hours (193 Gripens)

2008: 100,000 flying hours > In eight 8 years: 88,000 flying hours (100,000 -12,000)

http://www.cemus.uu.se/dokument/projekt ... so_far.pdf

Quote: January 2008
28 January 2008 saw another significant milestone in the Gripen programme, when the Gripen fleet
soared past the historic 100,000 flying hour mark.



Compared with a Dutch deployment in Afghanistan (4, 6 and 8 F16's)
10 years: deployment Afghanistan
o Total flying hours: 27,000 flying hours

Calculated this figure:
o Flying hours per year: 2700
o F16 per year: 540 flying hours (average number F16’s: 5 F16’s)


http://www.stratpost.com/wp-content/plu ... hp?id=6342

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 00:34
by XanderCrews
2meese wrote: 4.5 gen multirole aircraft for the Canadian taxpayer.


Oh you can find 4.5 generation aircraft everywhere, thats not the real problem is it?

The problem is that no matter how many 4.5 Gen aircraft you buy, you still don't have a 5th generation aircraft.

You can compare 4.5 gen aircraft until your eyes cross, but if they had fifth gen capability, we would call them 5th gen, and not 4.5 gen.You can't be half pregnant. you are or you aren't.

We all have our favorite 4.5 Generation aircraft:

Advanced Flankers, and Fulcrums, F-18Fs, Rafales, Typhoons, Gripens.

But there are basically only 2 available 5th gen aircraft.

The F-22 and the F-35. and the F-22 isn't available for export, and is OOP. so that kinda narrows it down.

:wink:

Frankly if Canada decides not to get the F-35, I really don't care what 4.5 Gen aircraft they get, anything other than the F-35 is just splitting hairs. You can fight over silver and bronze while everyone else gets gold.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 00:35
by bumtish
@ m

The actual Gripen flying hours of the Swedish Air Force are

Flygplanstyp 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
JAS 39 10,854 7,864 13,226 12,777 11,731

These numbers include foreign pilots being trained in Sweden.

Page 51 here
http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/upload/dok ... R%2011.pdf

Sweden is flying less hours than the Norwegian Air Force, which has about a third of the aircraft and which are pretty worn F-16s.


@ hb_pencil

I can join you on your skepticism wrt the Gripen CPFH. The $4k / hr figure is age-old and pertains to the Gripen A/B/C/D. I believe Saab have mentioned $7k / hr for the E/F. I suspect this is run at optimum conditions and some O&S costs which customers would normally include for through-life costs are not included. Conscripts may also be a factor.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 02:41
by gtx
2meese wrote:whaaat..The Gripen has a lower flyaway cost and cost per machine actually, Canadian jobs (optional) in production, sharing technology, Better allover performance, cheaper and easier to maintain, and let's not forget that it's ALOT more reliable and would be a perfect fit for canada since it could operate even from roadside bases. It might not have the internal munitions bay and be a pure "stealth" machine, but it's really small and hard to spot. Couple that with a greater range(exceeding 1300 k for combat patrol), higher speed and a much better manoeuverability and you'll have a great "bang for the buck" 4.5 gen multirole aircraft for the Canadian taxpayer.


interesting that you appear to think that the jobs element is optional - I'm sure there are plenty in Canada who would disagree.

How do you figure that the Gripen is "easier to maintain" or that it is " ALOT more reliable"

As for it being "a perfect fit for canada since it could operate even from roadside bases." please explain how this suddenly fits into Canadian operating routine?

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 03:07
by borntoholdout
I think the range of the F-35 is under sold. Most of the time the F-35 will fly with drop tanks. You can always drop your tanks the one time you need to. The F-35 probably has a lower RCS with 3 tanks than a Rafale with none. :D

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 03:26
by KamenRiderBlade
About drop tanks in general, does anybody go pick them up after it's dropped, or are they just lost upon detaching?

Do drop tanks have little parachutes so that they land softly and can be reused?

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 03:30
by SpudmanWP
Droptanks are disposable and the F-35 only carries 2.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 03:32
by KamenRiderBlade
Has anybody ever been hit by a drop tank detaching?

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 03:35
by bigjku
2meese wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
madrat wrote:If Canada looked for alternatives why wouldn't they honestly look at Gripen NG with Meteor?


No stealth and a flyaway cost that rivals that of the F-35.


whaaat..The Gripen has a lower flyaway cost and cost per machine actually, Canadian jobs (optional) in production, sharing technology, Better allover performance, cheaper and easier to maintain, and let's not forget that it's ALOT more reliable and would be a perfect fit for canada since it could operate even from roadside bases. It might not have the internal munitions bay and be a pure "stealth" machine, but it's really small and hard to spot. Couple that with a greater range(exceeding 1300 k for combat patrol), higher speed and a much better manoeuverability and you'll have a great "bang for the buck" 4.5 gen multirole aircraft for the Canadian taxpayer.


Sharing what technology? I am not sure the Gripen has anything worth sharing. It got it engine from the US. NASA helped fix its flight control issues. It uses mostly US or European weapons. Its radar is derivative of an old British radar set. Is there a single piece of "technology" on the Gripen that Canada does not already have in its CF-18's?

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 03:43
by Conan
bigjku wrote:Sharing what technology? I am not sure the Gripen has anything worth sharing. It got it engine from the US. NASA helped fix its flight control issues. It uses mostly US or European weapons. Its radar is derivative of an old British radar set. Is there a single piece of "technology" on the Gripen that Canada does not already have in its CF-18's?


It's got the world's most astonishingly amazing data-link. Despite this data-link being a more than 20 year old design, it's amazingly capable and far more capable than anything else that has ever been designed or could ever be designed.

It's also got amazingly astonishing aerodynamics, so much so that with a single F404 engine and bugger all fuel, it can out range an F-15E and out-perform (kinematically) an SR-71...

It truly is a magical "wunder" aircraft the Gripen (at least according to it's more strident fans)...

:roll:

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 03:44
by Conan
kamenriderblade wrote:Has anybody ever been hit by a drop tank detaching?


I'm fairly certain a few of the posters at ELP's blog have been hit by a "detaching drop tank..."

:lol:

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 03:51
by gtx
Conan wrote:
kamenriderblade wrote:Has anybody ever been hit by a drop tank detaching?


I'm fairly certain a few of the posters at ELP's blog have been hit by a "detaching drop tank..."

:lol:


We couldn't be so lucky...plus the drop tank would break :lol:

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 04:05
by Conan
gtx wrote:
Conan wrote:
kamenriderblade wrote:Has anybody ever been hit by a drop tank detaching?


I'm fairly certain a few of the posters at ELP's blog have been hit by a "detaching drop tank..."

:lol:


We couldn't be so lucky...plus the drop tank would break :lol:


True...

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 04:19
by spazsinbad
Have I not posted a photo of me astride my empty dropped drop tank (around 4,000 feet at 450 KIAS in a 30/20 degree dive)? Being empty it barrel rolled around a bit before hitting the deck (on the range). Only the front top side was severely dented but otherwise unusable. A full dropped drop tank detaching just after take off will shatter into a thousand small bits of metal. USAF Sabres over Korea had to stop automatically dropping their tanks due shortages. Sometimes they did and sometimes not.

ON this thread is the VC-724 LineBook Page photo + crop tanked:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ank#232419

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/ ... okPage.jpg

Image

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 05:54
by hb_pencil
2meese wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
madrat wrote:If Canada looked for alternatives why wouldn't they honestly look at Gripen NG with Meteor?


No stealth and a flyaway cost that rivals that of the F-35.


whaaat..The Gripen has a lower flyaway cost and cost per machine actually,



Contestable if even such a cost difference exists. F-35's per unit is projected to be around $75 million in 2020. I've suggested it will reach $85 million based on current trends with overruns.

The Gripen EF has been recently reported to be $80 million per aircraft according to the SAAB. Now that doesn't include possible research charges.

2meese wrote:Canadian jobs (optional) in production, sharing technology,



Completely Untrue.
The Joint Strike fighter project industrial participation program offers far greater opportunities for Canadian industries. Right now, the F-35 will probably reach around $9 billion dollars in contracts for the F-35 on a required offset amount of around $6.0 billion. That is because And that doesn't take into account non-partner sales and spares support (I think for the last one).

So what does the Gripen offer?

#1 Traditional Offset. So lets say a canadian buy is 65 aircraft totalling 5.2 billion. According to Canadian law, they must reciprocate 100% so offset arrangements at should be worth would $5.2 billion. Even if Saab over-offers at 130% like they have in the past competitions, Canada would only recieve around $6.7 billion in offsets. The offsets will likely be made up of a significant amount of indirect offsets, which are very poor for canadian industry development.


#2 licensed production; ie Canada produces the aircraft or a large part of its components. First, you need to develop canadian industry so that it can actually accept the technology. Canada lost its fighter system integration capabilities in the 70s with the end of the CF-115 production. Canada does not have an bonafide avionics manufacturer, or a system integrator, radar producer, and a whole host of other capabilities. The government would have to invest to produce those capabilities or buy foreign. So basically you're going to overpay for the capability. Japan (which possesses most of the industrial supply chain due to ) sees 40~80% cost overruns over original model costs.

I'll be generous lets say canada sees a cost overrun of 40%. so right now your flyaway is now 112 million for a Gripen.... and a total cost of $7.28 billion. That's still below the $9 billion the F-35 will accrue for Canada. In reality I'd suggest that we would see a 60~100% overrun, which would blow apart your affordability argument.

Finally there is limited positive benefit for Canada. Canada's ability to export the technology is limited because everybody else will be producing the same parts. So it will make this massive investment and then have very little use for it after our production ended. The F-35's industrial participation scheme is far far superior in this case.


2meese wrote:Better allover performance,



The Gripen has poorer range, carriage, weapons fit, sensors, signature management (aka stealth), communications. The latter three are absolutely essential for modern combat. Its the least interoperable with our allies, which is essential for the operations we carry out.

2meese wrote:, and let's not forget that it's ALOT more reliable



Extremely questionable. The F-35's performance based logistics and modular design will be extremely effective at delivering high levels of availability... The US department of Defense has set it as a key performance parameter at above 90%. By comparison the Gripen will utilize a more traditional maintenance scheme, with less spare parts support because you've produced the spare parts at the front end, or relying on the SAAB to get them for you.

2meese wrote: and would be a perfect fit for canada since it could operate even from roadside bases.



Why would we even need to do that? Its a complete waste of money. We have the bases to carry out operations we need. We would be exposing our aircraft to FOD damage and a whole host of other negative situations.


2meese wrote:It might not have the internal munitions bay and be a pure "stealth" machine, but it's really small and hard to spot.


Size has nothing to do with signature... its all about shape. The B-2 probably has five times the size of the F-35 and yet they are roughly comparable for their radar signature. The gripen with a single tail and slab sides would probably have a greater signature than the F/A-18E... around that of the old F-15.

2meese wrote: Couple that with a greater range(exceeding 1300 k for combat patrol)



Untrue. That's only possible if they load the Gripen with three large external tanks. So that's a combat radius of 700 Nautical miles. Now the F-35's current combat radius is 590. But that's without tanks and carrying a 4000lbs bombload. You remove that weight, and it will probably come close to making up that 100nm deficit. If not, you can still add tanks to the wings, and easily exceed that range.


2meese wrote: higher speed and a much better manoeuverability and you'll have a great "bang for the buck" 4.5 gen multirole aircraft for the Canadian taxpayer.


In almost every calculation, its not a superior capability.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 06:54
by borntoholdout
Let's say you did want to operate a roadside base. Wouldn't the F-35B have better short take off abilities.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 07:10
by XanderCrews
Salute to HB!!

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 09:08
by geogen
It will definitely be interesting to see the results of Canada's 'Options Analysis' to be conducted soon, as it will not be constrained by previous statements made of requirements.

As unpopular as this latest decision at the political level would seem to be for RCAF leadership, it would arguably be the best step forward in accelerating a resolution to the CF-18 replacement uncertainties and pushing ahead some form of updated assessment and replacement plan.

Given the delays, unknown affordability for partners -- eg, the uncertainties over total Procurement unit costs and operational & support costs for a future CF-35 fleet -- and other risks associated with staying-the-F-35-course (such as how much it could potentially cost in addition, to further SLEP additional CF-18s and upgrade them?), it's probably a fair decision to at least evaluate other options ASAP (including perhaps an interim-replacement LEASE option?) and then at least have more information available from which to proceed on in a most prudent manner.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 10:05
by Conan
Australia conducted an air combat review several years back too. Guess which path we chose? I wouldn't get too excited by this. The most likely outcome seems to me, to be business as usual with regards to F-35...

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 10:35
by gtx
Good reply HB!

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 20:47
by spazsinbad
Canada might be issuing RFIs for F-35 alternative soon Dave Majumdar 26 Nov 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... s-f-1.html

"...The Super Hornet, Typhoon and Rafale have twin engines, which at least for some Royal Canadian Air Force pilots, is a major benefit when patrolling the vast reaches of the Canadian Arctic.

But US Air force pilots who have flown in similar Arctic conditions don't necessarily buy that argument. "F-16s have been flying out of Eielson AFB for 20 years and haven't had many problems with their single engine," one senior USAF pilot says. Another USAF pilot with similar experience in Alaska says: "I don't buy the 'can't use a single engine aircraft for alert ops' argument that some Canadians are using. We always wore gear suitable to survive long enough to get rescued. If you make the assumption up front that there's a chance you'll have to bail out, then the probability of bailing out shouldn't really matter...especially if it's extremely negligible."

More of the same about requests for information (RFI) already seen in previous posts at URL.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 21:28
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:Canada might be issuing RFIs for F-35 alternative soon Dave Majumdar 26 Nov 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... s-f-1.html

"...The Super Hornet, Typhoon and Rafale have twin engines, which at least for some Royal Canadian Air Force pilots, is a major benefit when patrolling the vast reaches of the Canadian Arctic.

But US Air force pilots who have flown in similar Arctic conditions don't necessarily buy that argument. "F-16s have been flying out of Eielson AFB for 20 years and haven't had many problems with their single engine," one senior USAF pilot says. Another USAF pilot with similar experience in Alaska says: "I don't buy the 'can't use a single engine aircraft for alert ops' argument that some Canadians are using. We always wore gear suitable to survive long enough to get rescued. If you make the assumption up front that there's a chance you'll have to bail out, then the probability of bailing out shouldn't really matter...especially if it's extremely negligible."

More of the same about requests for information (RFI) already seen in previous posts at URL.

As commented about in another thread. There is a known F119 Goose strike which resulted in the engine being heavily damaged but it kept running. I haven't seen any evidence to indicate the F135 would be not be able to manage the same limp-home capability. It is a major improvement over the F100/F110 engines in the F-16. I don't recall a single case of a F-22 having to land on one engine, either.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 21:31
by SpudmanWP
On thing to remember is that due to the F-35 having one engine & the S-Duct having tight turns, the chance of a whole bird hitting the face intact is almost nil. It is likely to splatter against the intake sidewall before getting to the engine.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 21:39
by bigjku
spazsinbad wrote:Canada might be issuing RFIs for F-35 alternative soon Dave Majumdar 26 Nov 2012

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... s-f-1.html

"...The Super Hornet, Typhoon and Rafale have twin engines, which at least for some Royal Canadian Air Force pilots, is a major benefit when patrolling the vast reaches of the Canadian Arctic.

But US Air force pilots who have flown in similar Arctic conditions don't necessarily buy that argument. "F-16s have been flying out of Eielson AFB for 20 years and haven't had many problems with their single engine," one senior USAF pilot says. Another USAF pilot with similar experience in Alaska says: "I don't buy the 'can't use a single engine aircraft for alert ops' argument that some Canadians are using. We always wore gear suitable to survive long enough to get rescued. If you make the assumption up front that there's a chance you'll have to bail out, then the probability of bailing out shouldn't really matter...especially if it's extremely negligible."

More of the same about requests for information (RFI) already seen in previous posts at URL.


No no. Canada has unique operational requirements for its aircraft. They have special needs that no one else can understand. No one else can comprehend operating in cold weather or large spaces. Certainly not the USAF who operates over their dinky little country and never operates in cold weather or inhospitable climates. Only Canada can understand the complexities of why one might wait to implement a series of upgrades that hit in 1987 for US birds until 2001.

It seems clear to me that everyone here just flat does not understand things as well as Canada.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 22:38
by luke_sandoz
"It seems clear to me that everyone here just flat does not understand things as well as Canada."

Let me fix that for you

"It seems clear to me that everyone here just flat does not understand things as well as Canadian Journalists"

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 22:59
by XanderCrews
I know I don't. As you point out though I am from the small tropical fishing village known as "The United States" Though the locals generally call it "America." We are a very peaceful nation that generally keeps to itself and has no knowledge or experience in warfare or flying machines.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 23:10
by m
hb_pencil wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:@M the problem with the Gripen and the F-16 as far as Canada is concerned is its short range.


It was for the Gripen C, but not for the NG. However Saab acknowledged in parliamentary hearings that their fighter would not measure up to the F-35 in expeditionary warfare. Instead they were offering it as a complement to the F-35 for domestic ops.



One of the weird things was that they claimed an per hour cost of $4000 dollars... which is ridiculously low.


Switzerland will have rebuilt second-hand Gripen
Beni Gafner. Updated 09/26/2012

The draft of the Embassy of the Federal Council on the procurement of the Gripen contains some surprises.

Quote: Timetable unclear
By contrast, the Federal judges the "scheduling risk" as medium. "On one hand, delays in the development of the Gripen can not be excluded." On the other hand, the approval of the Swedish Gripen program located in the political process. This can not be excluded that even changes to the schedule shown expects the Bundesrat. The Air Force planned to build the operational readiness gradually. Until all the promised skills for combat, reconnaissance and combat ground targets are present, it will take until 2024.

Estimated in the draft are the operating costs: 102 million francs per year (6 million Swiss francs for the operation of real estate included). The operating cost per hour in the template are not explicitly mentioned. This amount, taking into account the specified annual costs for personnel (24 million), maintenance (51 million) and fuel (21 million), more so than in previous presentations Saab journalists presented. The calculation of operating costs per hour sets the Switzerland based on a flight operating time of 180 hours per year. At 22 Gripen, this gives cost of 24'242 francs per flight hour. Saab announced during a presentation in Sweden at a price of less than 10,000 francs. (Basler Zeitung) Here is still a need for clarification. (Basler Zeitung)
http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl ... 2F18471087

http://www.bernerzeitung.ch/schweiz/sta ... y/18471087



Swiss (180 flying hours): calculation
Per flying hour: CHF24,242 = € 20,117.84 = $25,970.12 (rate: nov 25, 2012)

Fuel: CHF 21 million = €17.43 million = $22.5 million
Per Gripen: $ 1,022,727.27 > $5681.81 per flying hour (180 flying hours)

Saab: figures by Saab
Per flying hour: less than CHF10,000 = €8,298.76 =$10,712.86 (rate: nov. 25, 2012)


As far as I know, a Swedish Gripen flies roughly some 60 flying hours per year.
(There are also very few Swedish pilots with 1000 flying hours)

When figures are based on Swedish Airforce figures, delivered by Saab, this clarifies to some extend may be the difference concerning flying cost ?
Norway as well the Netherlands claimed higher costs.

F16MLU
Compared with a Dutch or Belgium F16MLU: €20,000 per flying hour (2010)




Concerning range

The Gripen is like a knife that cuts bad
http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl ... d%3D217497

http://www.sonntagszeitung.ch/home/arti ... sid=217497

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 23:10
by spazsinbad
Come on :D the 'Great White UP' is not called that for nothing. :D Anyway here is some Canadian insight into the single engine thingo...

Also found here initially: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... oka#235426

F-35 and the Future of Canadian Security Richard Shimooka | November 2012
Strategic Studies Working Group Papers | Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/F-35%20and%20t ... curity.pdf (1.6Mb)

"...The second rationale for the JSF’s purchase is to defend “the sovereignty of Canadian airspace”, as stated in the Canada First Defence Strategy and as part of Canada’s NORAD commitment. Subsequent statements by the Conservative government have affirmed this view, frequently pointing to defending Canada’s northern approaches as a key mission for the new fighter (Duggan 2010). The JSF’s ability to fulfil this role has become a point of contention. Among the most criticized aspect is the fact that the F-35 is a single engine plane, which some claim to be less reliable than a twin-engine fighter like the CF-18 (Byers, Webb 2010, 221). The expressed fear is that a single engine fighter is more vulnerable to engine failure, which may force a pilot to bail out over harsh arctic landscape.

Yet evidence suggests a far more mixed picture. Single engine fighters tend to require less engine maintenance, are more fuel efficient and cheaper to maintain. In comparison, the redundancy of twin engines possesses several major advantages from an operational standpoint. Historically, twin engines tend to suffer one-fourth the catastrophic engine mishaps as the single engine aircraft (Air Force Safety Centre, 2011). This has important operational consequences as well. Due to the perceived vulnerability of their systems, pilots with a single engine will often abort a mission upon receiving an abnormal system warning (Anonymous 2011). Twin-engine pilots often feel that greater reliability offers greater leeway in such a situation, allowing them to fly with a degraded system.

However, advances in technology and maintenance routines have dramatically improved modern engine reliability (McDermott 2011). This is apparent when comparing the service history of the Pratt and Whitney F100-229 engine, which was designed in the 1990s and shares a number of features with the F-35’s F135. According to United States Air Force Safety data (2011), no F100-229-equipped F-16C Block 52 (with a single engine) has suffered an engine-related failure with over 250,000 flight hours of operations, compared with four failures in over 900,000 hours for F-15Es (with twin engines). Although the F-16C Block 52 has flown significantly fewer hours than the F-15E, its mishap rate offers a good indication of the F135’s potential reliability. A Canadian fleet of 65 F-35s would accumulate approximately 520,000 flight hours over a lifetime of 8,000 hours per aircraft, or just over double that of the F-16’s service history. Based on these figures, the JSFs may potentially have a similar number of engine failures as the CF-18 over its life. The F-35’s active diagnostics system should also provide warnings significantly earlier than previous engines, adding to pilot safety. These figures require some qualification however. They do not include foreign object damage and bird strikes, which can lead to the loss of an aircraft during take-offs and landings. It is difficult to estimate their potential effect on the F-35, as the F135 engine is significantly more robust than the F100-229 or any other military engine currently in service and will provide improved resistance to catastrophic engine failure (Anonymous 2012a).

Canadian concerns over reliability are by no means unique. The USN insists on stringent reliability standards for their aircraft because of their demanding operational environment.2 Carrier-based aircraft are often exposed to harsh sea conditions and violent catapult launches and arrested landings. The Air Force F-35A will benefit from the Navy’s standards due to the high level of commonality between their versions (Department of Defense 2011, 3). Furthermore, it should also be noted that Norway and the United States have successfully operated F-16s in a similar arctic environment for over 20 years and plan to replace their fleets with F-35As.

2 The F-35 must pass the US Navy and Marine Standards enclosed in Section 19 in addition the USAF standards in MIL-HDBK-516B, Airworthiness Certification Criteria. Department of Defense Available URL: http://www.theiplgroup.com/MIL-HNBK-516B.pdf (1.3Mb) ...."

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 23:16
by spazsinbad
Some info about 'range' from same source above to follow....

F-35 and the Future of Canadian Security
Richard Shimooka | November 2012

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/F-35%20and%20t ... curity.pdf

"...Another key requirement for operating in the north is adequate range. CF-18s are often deployed to a forward operational base within Canada when required, such as Inuvik and Iqualuit in the north when Russian aircraft encroach on Canadian borders. The furthest distance it would be expected to travel is approximately 1055 nautical miles from Cold Lake to Inuvik, while a typical intercept might be 500 nautical miles from base with 25 to 30 minutes to escort the target (Anonymous 2012b). For this mission, CF-18s require three external tanks (16,000 lbs of fuel) and carry at least two AIM-9 Sidewinders, resulting in a rough combat radius of 650 nautical miles. The JSF normally carries all its fuel and ordinance internally as a low-observable aircraft, which is more efficient than most other aircraft. According to US Government estimates, the F-35A’s combat radius is 590 nautical miles with a nominal combat load (with 18,250 lbs of fuel), which would be sufficient for most intercepts (Department of Defense 2011a, 10). However, this estimate is based on a less efficient high-med-high altitude flight profile while carrying 4000lbs of air-to-ground ordinance. The F-35’s radius will easily exceed that of the CF-18 and the F/A-18E with this weight removed (Department of Defense 2011, 9), but not that of the Rafale or the Eurofighter (Rafale International 2000, 4). Finally, the F-35’s sensor capabilities can be used for search and rescue functions to a much greater effect than current CF-18s. The F-35’s electro-optical sensor system will also be particularly effective for locating aircraft and ships intruding into Canadian territory...."

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 23:16
by bigjku
That last line I would really really point to. If the Marines and the United States Navy can be happy operating the thing in salt-water spray, with catapults and at austere airbases then I think it will be more than fine for chasing the geese around for Canada. Either buy it or don't I really don't care that much. But I am sick of having my google news feed clogged up with rantings from Canada on the subject. They seem far more worked up about it than anyone else in the world which is getting old.

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2012, 23:40
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Some info about 'range' from same source above to follow....

F-35 and the Future of Canadian Security
Richard Shimooka | November 2012

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/F-35%20and%20t ... curity.pdf

"...Another key requirement for operating in the north is adequate range. CF-18s are often deployed to a forward operational base within Canada when required, such as Inuvik and Iqualuit in the north when Russian aircraft encroach on Canadian borders. The furthest distance it would be expected to travel is approximately 1055 nautical miles from Cold Lake to Inuvik, while a typical intercept might be 500 nautical miles from base with 25 to 30 minutes to escort the target (Anonymous 2012b). For this mission, CF-18s require three external tanks (16,000 lbs of fuel) and carry at least two AIM-9 Sidewinders, resulting in a rough combat radius of 650 nautical miles. The JSF normally carries all its fuel and ordinance internally as a low-observable aircraft, which is more efficient than most other aircraft. According to US Government estimates, the F-35A’s combat radius is 590 nautical miles with a nominal combat load (with 18,250 lbs of fuel), which would be sufficient for most intercepts (Department of Defense 2011a, 10). However, this estimate is based on a less efficient high-med-high altitude flight profile while carrying 4000lbs of air-to-ground ordinance. The F-35’s radius will easily exceed that of the CF-18 and the F/A-18E with this weight removed (Department of Defense 2011, 9), but not that of the Rafale or the Eurofighter (Rafale International 2000, 4). Finally, the F-35’s sensor capabilities can be used for search and rescue functions to a much greater effect than current CF-18s. The F-35’s electro-optical sensor system will also be particularly effective for locating aircraft and ships intruding into Canadian territory...."


Of course, not to forget the AETD-enhanced engines that will provide another 5-10% thrust and 25% more range.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 00:03
by spazsinbad
'Joe Green' knows the score (is he a typical CanUK?). Did I forget the smileyface?

Looking at stealth By Theresa Seraphim, Cold Lake Sun 26 Nov 2012

http://www.coldlakesun.com/2012/11/26/l ... at-stealth

"...However, Joe Green, an Edmonton resident who reserved in the RCAF in the 1960s, said neither the F-18s nor the F-35s would be able to shoot down existing sub-sonic cruise missiles.

“The real threat Canada faces is going to come from hypersonic cruise missiles, for which only particle beam weapons offer any sort of hope for a defence,” said Green, who has some suggestions on the type of aircraft needed in Canada.

“The bottom line is this: for an air supremacy fighter for Canada’s air defences, we require a twin engine, supersonic “super cruise” all-weather interceptor in sufficient numbers to cover our territory,” he noted, adding stealth is not necessarily the way to go.

“Instead of ‘stealth’, we should pick an aircraft with additional speed margin and order a sufficiently large number for our needs. Because this aircraft is less costly, we can buy more, for a reduced total bill.”

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 00:06
by neurotech
I have an idea: Buy some KC-130J (or refueling pods for the CC-130J) aircraft and tank the F/A-18E/F, F-35 or Rafale jets in the air. The C-130J has four engines, and works in cold climates.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 00:08
by count_to_10
"Particle beam weapons"?
Is he serious? Unless you really mean "laser", a particle beam isn't going to go anywhere in the atmosphere.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 00:25
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:'Joe Green' knows the score (is he a typical CanUK?). Did I forget the smileyface?

Looking at stealth By Theresa Seraphim, Cold Lake Sun 26 Nov 2012

http://www.coldlakesun.com/2012/11/26/l ... at-stealth

"...However, Joe Green, an Edmonton resident who reserved in the RCAF in the 1960s, said neither the F-18s nor the F-35s would be able to shoot down existing sub-sonic cruise missiles."

Really Joe? I would be very surprised if a F-35 (combat configured Block 3) couldn't locate and engage a subsonic cruise missile. A F/A-18E/F can locate a low-flying subsonic missile with AESA radar, and yes.. shoot it down. AESA radar isn't as adversely impacted by ground clutter.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 00:38
by SpudmanWP
F-35 + CUDA = massed cruise missile defense

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 01:31
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:...“Instead of ‘stealth’, we should pick an aircraft with additional speed margin and order a sufficiently large number for our needs. Because this aircraft is less costly, we can buy more, for a reduced total bill.”


By the time Canada provides the order, Boeing can provide QF-18s. This a/c will not require missiles or bullets and can be flown by committees from Ottawa..... :lol:

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 01:56
by f-22lm
neptune wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:...“Instead of ‘stealth’, we should pick an aircraft with additional speed margin and order a sufficiently large number for our needs. Because this aircraft is less costly, we can buy more, for a reduced total bill.”


By the time Canada provides the order, Boeing can provide QF-18s. This a/c will not require missiles or bullets and can be flown by committees from Ottawa..... :lol:
Nope that's the time we would have Qf-22s :roll:

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 02:38
by alloycowboy
So lets say Canada buys non a Stealth Fighter aircraft what would there role be in any future NATO mission, fly decoy for SAMS? I can see the RCAF pilots signing up for that one.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 03:16
by bigjku
alloycowboy wrote:So lets say Canada buys non a Stealth Fighter aircraft what would there role be in any future NATO mission, fly decoy for SAMS? I can see the RCAF pilots signing up for that one.


For me discussions about the F-35 really start to make me worry about the utility of NATO and NORAD. I don't want to say the F-35 is a litmus test for ones commitment to a viable military force, that would not be fair. But increasingly I think most nations in those alliances have kind of lost the plot with their military in one of two ways.

The first group seems to think that the fall of the Soviet Union means the end of war and have in many respects drastically disarmed themselves to the point they really can't accomplish a whole lot.

The second group seems to view the military as a means to create high technology jobs and exports. Many times programs look to be more about that than the end product. I think what Europe is doing on UAV's is telling here. Most are content to do without a crucial capability until a European program can be birthed.

When I hear nations balk at buying the F-35 I don't want to think poorly of them but then I consider the fact that if they don't buy it who will they lean on for SEAD support, electronic warfare support and everything else? The F-35 to me represents a chance for other nations to really give a front line contribution to operations in the future. If they won't do it then I start to wonder what the point of all these alliances are.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 04:16
by XanderCrews
most nations in those alliances have kind of lost the plot with their military


The military is that thing you take from when you run out of money for other programs.

I start to wonder what the point of all these alliances are.


You aren't just saying that because France and England combined still need lots of American help to kick a sad little nation like Libya's a$$ right?

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 04:21
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'Joe Green' knows the score (is he a typical CanUK?). Did I forget the smileyface?

Looking at stealth By Theresa Seraphim, Cold Lake Sun 26 Nov 2012

http://www.coldlakesun.com/2012/11/26/l ... at-stealth

"...However, Joe Green, an Edmonton resident who reserved in the RCAF in the 1960s, said neither the F-18s nor the F-35s would be able to shoot down existing sub-sonic cruise missiles."

Really Joe? I would be very surprised if a F-35 (combat configured Block 3) couldn't locate and engage a subsonic cruise missile. A F/A-18E/F can locate a low-flying subsonic missile with AESA radar, and yes.. shoot it down. AESA radar isn't as adversely impacted by ground clutter.


If its any consolation I'm betting this guy doesn't know anything about AESA radar, unless it dates from the 60's. I do give Theresa great credit though: Surely this was the best expert to talk to. A 1960's era reservist.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 04:24
by spazsinbad
Green is Theresa's dad. :D Give her a break!

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 05:19
by popcorn
neurotech wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'Joe Green' knows the score (is he a typical CanUK?). Did I forget the smileyface?

Looking at stealth By Theresa Seraphim, Cold Lake Sun 26 Nov 2012

http://www.coldlakesun.com/2012/11/26/l ... at-stealth

"...However, Joe Green, an Edmonton resident who reserved in the RCAF in the 1960s, said neither the F-18s nor the F-35s would be able to shoot down existing sub-sonic cruise missiles."

Really Joe? I would be very surprised if a F-35 (combat configured Block 3) couldn't locate and engage a subsonic cruise missile. A F/A-18E/F can locate a low-flying subsonic missile with AESA radar, and yes.. shoot it down. AESA radar isn't as adversely impacted by ground clutter.


No need for an AESA when Joe can have a 1960s-vintage Mach 3 Avro Arrow to get the job done... and it will be a lot cheaper too
:roll:

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 12:06
by 1st503rdsgt
To whom it may concern, I was on the internet the other day, and I found THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnCtuWak-3g

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 14:09
by popcorn
1st503rdsgt wrote:To whom it may concern, I was on the internet the other day, and I found THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnCtuWak-3g


17 likes, 82 dislikes.. :D

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 14:26
by 1st503rdsgt
popcorn wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:To whom it may concern, I was on the internet the other day, and I found THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnCtuWak-3g
17 likes, 82 dislikes.. :D
I noticed that as well. Seems the Canadians are quite sentimental about the Arrow. I would suggest giving them what they want for my own entertainment. One would love to see what happens when they discover that their Mach 3 fighter is actually only capable of Mach 1.9, but that would just be cruel.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 15:19
by bigjku
I have always struggled to see how the F-106 was not a better option seeing as it was in service, cheaper, used only one engine and was much smaller than the Arrow.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 17:30
by XanderCrews
bigjku wrote:I have always struggled to see how the F-106 was not a better option seeing as it was in service, cheaper, used only one engine and was much smaller than the Arrow.


Because it doesn't increase canadian p***s size

News story about the ultra safe F-18F dual engine failure crash in an apartment building in April 2012. Pilots ejected and didn't freeze to death because they bailed out of an F-18 and not an F-35.

http://wtkr.com/2012/11/26/newschannel- ... apartment/

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 18:16
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:
bigjku wrote:I have always struggled to see how the F-106 was not a better option seeing as it was in service, cheaper, used only one engine and was much smaller than the Arrow.


Because it doesn't increase canadian p***s size

News story about the ultra safe F-18F dual engine failure crash in an apartment building in April 2012. Pilots ejected and didn't freeze to death because they bailed out of an F-18 and not an F-35.

http://wtkr.com/2012/11/26/newschannel- ... apartment/

Thanks for the video... but that is a F/A-18D from VFA-106, not a F/A-18F Super Hornet. The difference is that the F414 engines are better, and less likely to shut-down from FOD, than the F404 engines in the older F/A-18s. This was NOT FOD or internal engine malfunction, it was fuel ingestion apparently from an auxiliary system, leaked fuel into the intake. This particular occurrence is an extremely rare event. I don't think it'd ever happened before in a F/A-18.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 18:30
by maus92
neurotech wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
bigjku wrote:I have always struggled to see how the F-106 was not a better option seeing as it was in service, cheaper, used only one engine and was much smaller than the Arrow.


Because it doesn't increase canadian p***s size

News story about the ultra safe F-18F dual engine failure crash in an apartment building in April 2012. Pilots ejected and didn't freeze to death because they bailed out of an F-18 and not an F-35.

http://wtkr.com/2012/11/26/newschannel- ... apartment/

Thanks for the video... but that is a F/A-18D from VFA-106, not a F/A-18F Super Hornet. The difference is that the F414 engines are better, and less likely to shut-down from FOD, than the F404 engines in the older F/A-18s. This was NOT FOD or internal engine malfunction, it was fuel ingestion apparently from an auxiliary system, leaked fuel into the intake. This particular occurrence is an extremely rare event. I don't think it'd ever happened before in a F/A-18.


Thank you. Plus the other engine had an unrelated issue with its afterburner. Extremely rare, in fact unprecedented, scenario.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 19:29
by neurotech
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:Thanks for the video... but that is a F/A-18D from VFA-106, not a F/A-18F Super Hornet. The difference is that the F414 engines are better, and less likely to shut-down from FOD, than the F404 engines in the older F/A-18s. This was NOT FOD or internal engine malfunction, it was fuel ingestion apparently from an auxiliary system, leaked fuel into the intake. This particular occurrence is an extremely rare event. I don't think it'd ever happened before in a F/A-18.


Thank you. Plus the other engine had an unrelated issue with its afterburner. Extremely rare, in fact unprecedented, scenario.

That is what the Navy statement said, although the mishap report states there was a "glitch" with the AB logic, that stopped the AB from re-lighting after a blow-out that was related to the first engine malfunction. Decreased total bleed air, and a few other issues like increased turbine temperature resulted in no auto-relight.

This also underscores the argument that Computer-Based Training Simulators can not replace aviators getting seat time. For the critical seconds in the mishap, the pilot and WSO thought they had a MLG tire blowout. Unless the pilot had experienced both a MLG tire blowout and a (separate) major engine failure before, they wouldn't have known the difference in time.

Unread postPosted: 27 Nov 2012, 19:32
by gtx
This is derived from something I wrote earlier this year in response to some of the Canadian reluctance re the F-35. Specifically people who were rolling out the "F-35 doesn't match Canada's unique threats" line.:

Whilst I agree that one can never know where the next threat may come from, you do have to remain realistic. In Canada’s case, I would assume that any direct military threat would conceivably come either from the following (note however, that I acknowledge that I speak as an outsider here who may not fully understand or appreciate things from a Canadian perspective):

· USA – theoretically Canada's biggest threat given the common border and military imbalance, outside the realm of fictional novels, Hollywood and whatif scenarios, does anyone really believe there is a military threat there? There is a lot of common history, values and other reasons to overcome first for that scenario to become real. And even if there was, short of massively arming to the teeth (probably also with nuclear weapons), how exactly would any Canadian Military fight off an attack (just on population the USA outweighs Canada something like 9 times over). Whilst I am sure that in any such scenario. Canadians would make a damn hard resistance movement; this is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the type of weapons we are apparently discussing here.

· Russia – historically (at least for the last 60 odd years), Canada’s apparent primary threat. Also assumingly, the reason why Canada is part of both NORAD and NATO. Surely to defend against this threat, the most cost effective strategies would be to ally yourself with a strong ally …such as the USA?

· Greenland – well unless Denmark starts arming to the teeth, I think Canada can easily handle this one even without new fighters. There may however be some scope for territorial disputes over natural resources though I think that hardly needs much more then what Canada already have/are planning upon;

· Iceland – I think we can agree that apart from once again some possible territorial disputes over natural resources, there is little risk of the Greater Icelandic Empire causing any concern for Canada;

· Japan – since WWII, I doubt Canada really views Japan as a military threat worth planning for. However, even if they do, is there really any direct threat to Canada?

· UK/Ireland – well, unless Canada really pisses off the ‘parent’, I doubt the UK will come looking at giving them a ‘spanking’. Therefore, once again, a totally implausible scenario.

· North Korea – the apparent favourite ‘rogue nation’ of late. Whilst there maybe a theoretical threat to Canada from long range missiles, I think that if ever that scenario played out, you would find that they would be aimed at the USA first or even if they weren’t, that the USA would intervene first. This theoretically, however might be a justification for ABMs or similar?

· Europe – well, once again Canada would need to see a major breakdown in relations before this became a serious, realistic threat. Moreover, arguably in such a scenario, Canada might well find that the USA would stand shoulder to shoulder with you to fight off the European invaders; and/or

· Space Aliens – might as well include this scenario as it is just as likely as any others. In fact, it might even be more realistic then some, depending upon your point of view. As to what you would equip yourself to fight this theoretical enemy is up to you.

You will note that I leave off three scenarios here:

· Terrorist/non-state group action – hardly something that you will be looking at making major equipment decisions around…unless of course you look at intervention scenarios such as Afghanistan (in which case, Canada would most likely be doing so either as part of the UN or some other coalition…in fact a good reason to pursue commonality with your allies);

· Internal Civil War – i.e. something like the Quebec breakaway scenario. This one is interesting in that how would you do anything (equipment wise) that prevents or prepares for this?

· Deployed operations – probably the most likely by far (at least based upon the last 60 odd years of Canadian Military experience.). Typically these style of operations are not so much defence against direct threats to Canada (well, maybe NATO deployments could be considered a form of forward defence) but more of defence of Canadian Interests. They are usually also typically undertaken either as part of the UN or some other coalition in which case, my earlier comments regarding commonality and interoperability hold true.

To me, all of this points perfectly to the F-35 as being the answer.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 04:19
by maus92
F-35 not only jet that meets stealth needs, top general says
Chief of defence staff contradicts defence minister in Commons committee testimony

CBC News Posted: Nov 30, 2012 2:24 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 30, 2012 7:18 PM ET

"Canada's new chief of defence staff has contradicted Defence Minister Peter MacKay by suggesting that other fighter jets do offer some of the stealth capabilities the military needs.

"Lawson, himself a former fighter pilot, downplayed the importance of Canada buying a so-called "fifth generation" aircraft. The marketing classification "fifth generation" is used in the United States to signify aircraft with the latest technology as of 2012, including advanced stealth capabilities.

"Fourth and fifth generation is not a very helpful way of looking at that aircraft," Lawson told reporters in a scrum after his testimony."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... ml?cmp=rss

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 04:44
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:F-35 not only jet that meets stealth needs, top general says
Chief of defence staff contradicts defence minister in Commons committee testimony

CBC News Posted: Nov 30, 2012 2:24 PM ET Last Updated: Nov 30, 2012 7:18 PM ET

"Canada's new chief of defence staff has contradicted Defence Minister Peter MacKay by suggesting that other fighter jets do offer some of the stealth capabilities the military needs.

"Lawson, himself a former fighter pilot, downplayed the importance of Canada buying a so-called "fifth generation" aircraft. The marketing classification "fifth generation" is used in the United States to signify aircraft with the latest technology as of 2012, including advanced stealth capabilities.

"Fourth and fifth generation is not a very helpful way of looking at that aircraft," Lawson told reporters in a scrum after his testimony."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... ml?cmp=rss


There is such a wealth of double speak and contradiction in that article I'm amazed its not straight from the Canadian Government itself.

I agree that 4th generation and 5th generation are not very helpful ways of looking at aircraft in the sense that in aerial combat 2nd place means dead. I would much prefer they refer to fifth generation and fourth generation aircraft as "Winners and Losers" respectively. Cut through all that marketing. :D

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 04:50
by bigjku
I would dispute this comment.

"There are countries around the world flying the [other aircraft with stealth capabilities] to great success these days," Lawson told MPs on Thursday."


There are not nations doing useful work against real air defense systems without either stealth somewhere in their arsenal or a huge amount of standoff weapons and jamming. Even Libya proves this. Eurofighters and Rafale fighters were useful as soon as the US used its TLAM's, B-2's and EA-18's to gut any ability Libya had to defend itself.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 05:00
by XanderCrews
bigjku wrote:Even Libya proves this. Eurofighters and Rafale fighters were useful as soon as the US used its TLAM's, B-2's and EA-18's to gut any ability Libya had to defend itself.


Whoa there friend! We don't talk about that part. We talk about how awesome Europe was in taking out the Libyan Juggernaut.

I think one of things lost in the great debate about the value of stealth is what you mention above. Its real easy for the Eurocanard conglomerate to poo poo stealth. But what options have they given that competes with stealth? Where are the Jamming versions of Typhoons? or Gripens? has anyone bothered to ask how screwed these air forces are if the US doesn't show up without stealth aircraft AND Jammers? buying the VLO F-35 might the most mature response to an actually capable NATO force that can do its own heavy lifting for once. No wonder they hate it :D

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 05:07
by delvo
One minute it's "Stealth can so easily be defeated it's futile", the next minute it's "Stealth works but is useless against camel jockeys", the next minute it's "Stealth works and is important but F-35 doesn't have it", and now it's "Stealth works and is important and F-35 has it but look at all those other non-stealthy planes that also have it". These people are making me dizzy.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 05:15
by XanderCrews
delvo wrote:One minute it's "Stealth can easily so be defeated it's futile", the next minute it's "Stealth works but is useless against camel jockeys", the next minute it's "Stealth works and is important but F-35 doesn't have it", and now it's "Stealth works and is important and F-35 has it but look at all those other non-stealthy planes that also have it". These people are making me dizzy.


Dont forget the "it just has to say 'stealth' it doesn't have to say how much" category

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 05:22
by bigjku
delvo wrote:One minute it's "Stealth can easily so be defeated it's futile", the next minute it's "Stealth works but is useless against camel jockeys", the next minute it's "Stealth works and is important but F-35 doesn't have it", and now it's "Stealth works and is important and F-35 has it but look at all those other non-stealthy planes that also have it". These people are making me dizzy.


To me it is just put up or shut up time for the other designs. If they are such hot poo than send them into Syria and kick a$$ Europe. You have bought no standoff jamming support. You have a limited stock of standoff weapons and limited shooting platforms for them. Seriously, have at it and prove the world wrong.

Canada is much the same. They fly around in F-18's that they could hardly be bothered to upgrade for years to be useful once the US has done the heavy lifting of knocking out the IADS so no one has to deal with being shot at too much. I am sure whatever they buy, even if it is nothing, will be fine for flying around under NORAD control and scaring the poop out of the odd moose or two up north.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 05:34
by XanderCrews
bigjku wrote:
delvo wrote:One minute it's "Stealth can easily so be defeated it's futile", the next minute it's "Stealth works but is useless against camel jockeys", the next minute it's "Stealth works and is important but F-35 doesn't have it", and now it's "Stealth works and is important and F-35 has it but look at all those other non-stealthy planes that also have it". These people are making me dizzy.


To me it is just put up or shut up time for the other designs. If they are such hot poo than send them into Syria and kick a$$ Europe. You have bought no standoff jamming support. You have a limited stock of standoff weapons and limited shooting platforms for them. Seriously, have at it and prove the world wrong.

Canada is much the same. They fly around in F-18's that they could hardly be bothered to upgrade for years to be useful once the US has done the heavy lifting of knocking out the IADS so no one has to deal with being shot at too much. I am sure whatever they buy, even if it is nothing, will be fine for flying around under NORAD control and scaring the poop out of the odd moose or two up north.


Right on. As "sequestration looms" in the US, maybe we spend less money protecting people that can't bother to protect themselves? In one night in Libya we shot more Cruise Missiles than the UK possessed in total. Denmark ran out of bombs and had to buy from Israel. The Rafale and Eurofighter got drop in clean skies, while bragging that the F-22 was no where in sight.

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 07:24
by spazsinbad
Graphic: Canada’s fighter jet options and potential adversaries in the sky Richard Johnson | Nov 30, 2012

"Ottawa is reconsidering its costly pick for Canada’s next fighter jets. Here’s how the F-35 stealth fighter stacks up against its possible competitors:"

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/30 ... Stories%29

PDF of graphic is 4Mb: http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress ... etsweb.pdf

HiRez JPG is 1.1Mb: http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress ... b12001.jpg

Only the F-35 portion is shown below - information on other aircraft is probably as dodgey as the F-35 but I guess your viewpoint and YMMV. Line drawings seem good?

Unread postPosted: 02 Dec 2012, 07:37
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Graphic: Canada’s fighter jet options and potential adversaries in the sky Richard Johnson | Nov 30, 2012
My favorite is the number of hardpoints given for each plane. I'm not sure they got any right.

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2012, 00:16
by bigjku
1st503rdsgt wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Graphic: Canada’s fighter jet options and potential adversaries in the sky Richard Johnson | Nov 30, 2012
My favorite is the number of hardpoints given for each plane. I'm not sure they got any right.


For whatever reason internal hard points don't count.

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2012, 03:48
by SpudmanWP
They missed the center mount too.

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2012, 15:11
by luke_sandoz
"Canadian Journalist"

Who knew it is a euphemism for stand up comic.

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2012, 21:17
by m
XanderCrews wrote: Right on. As "sequestration looms" in the US, maybe we spend less money protecting people that can't bother to protect themselves? In one night in Libya we shot more Cruise Missiles than the UK possessed in total. Denmark ran out of bombs and had to buy from Israel. The Rafale and Eurofighter got drop in clean skies, while bragging that the F-22 was no where in sight.


Former Defense Minister Gitte Lillelund Bech denied any knowledge of the purchase.

“I was very aware that the Danish F-16 squadron lacked munitions, and I gave the green light to acquire munitions from the Netherlands and Poland, but I never heard anything about Israel in that connection. Nothing at all,” Bech said.

http://www.acus.org/natosource/report-n ... ld-country

Not that strange Denmark run out of bombs. It's a small country, but dropped more bombs than most of the other coalition forces.

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2012, 21:30
by XanderCrews
m wrote:
XanderCrews wrote: Right on. As "sequestration looms" in the US, maybe we spend less money protecting people that can't bother to protect themselves? In one night in Libya we shot more Cruise Missiles than the UK possessed in total. Denmark ran out of bombs and had to buy from Israel. The Rafale and Eurofighter got drop in clean skies, while bragging that the F-22 was no where in sight.


Former Defense Minister Gitte Lillelund Bech denied any knowledge of the purchase.

“I was very aware that the Danish F-16 squadron lacked munitions, and I gave the green light to acquire munitions from the Netherlands and Poland, but I never heard anything about Israel in that connection. Nothing at all,” Bech said.

http://www.acus.org/natosource/report-n ... ld-country

Not that strange Denmark run out of bombs. It's a small country, but dropped more bombs than most of the other coalition forces.


Thanks :wink:

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2012, 00:36
by hb_pencil
m wrote:
XanderCrews wrote: Right on. As "sequestration looms" in the US, maybe we spend less money protecting people that can't bother to protect themselves? In one night in Libya we shot more Cruise Missiles than the UK possessed in total. Denmark ran out of bombs and had to buy from Israel. The Rafale and Eurofighter got drop in clean skies, while bragging that the F-22 was no where in sight.


Former Defense Minister Gitte Lillelund Bech denied any knowledge of the purchase.

“I was very aware that the Danish F-16 squadron lacked munitions, and I gave the green light to acquire munitions from the Netherlands and Poland, but I never heard anything about Israel in that connection. Nothing at all,” Bech said.

http://www.acus.org/natosource/report-n ... ld-country

Not that strange Denmark run out of bombs. It's a small country, but dropped more bombs than most of the other coalition forces.


Canada did in Kosovo. We bought more off of the Americans on the flight line and paid for them by Credit Card.

Unread postPosted: 04 Dec 2012, 05:40
by spazsinbad
Someone got up this editor's nose (not me and I'm not the editor). Full post is as below which of course refers to the PDF mentioned at the top of this page. I would like to know more about the editor of 'defense-aerospace.com' but maybe not. :D

F-35 and the Future of Canadian Security
Source: Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute
Ref: ISSN 1925-4903 Issued Nov. 15, 2012

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/F-35%20and%20t ... curity.pdf 38 pages in PDF format

"Canada's participation in the Joint Strike Fighter project has been fraught with much controversy and a lack of clarity. A new research paper from Richard Shimooka aims to assess how the F-35 meets Canadian requirements over the next few decades.

It concludes that the F-35 likely represents the future of Western tactical air forces for the next 40 years, and that the F-35 is best-suited to meet the future range of foreign and domestic challenges facing Canada.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: This report is only included in the interests of comprehensiveness. Its value in terms of analysis and information content is close to nil, since it takes at face value the arguments made by F-35 proponents without any attempt at checking how these claims have stood up – and continue to stand up - to reality.)"
__________________________

I was only kiddin' - this is the editor of whappitywhap.com details: (maybe it is a French/English thing?) :twisted: :roll:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/page/about.html

defense-aerospace.com is published by :
Briganti et Associés
19 Bld du Parc
92200 Neuilly Sur Seine (France)
Tel : 01 47 47 49 34 - Fax : 01 47 47 60 04
e-mail : admin@defense-aerospace.com

Editor and Publisher: Giovanni de Briganti editor@defense-aerospace.com
(Directeur responsable de la publication : Giovanni de Briganti)

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 02:53
by pushoksti
Sigh...

F-35s scrapped by Conservatives as audit puts true cost past $30B

The F-35 jet fighter purchase, the most persistent thorn in the Harper government’s side and the subject of a devastating auditor-general’s report last spring, is dead.

Faced with the imminent release of an audit by accountants KPMG that will push the total projected life-cycle costs of the aircraft above $30-billion, the operations committee of cabinet decided Tuesday evening to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said.

This occurred after Chief of the Defence Staff Thomas Lawson, while en route overseas, was called back urgently to appear before the committee, the source said.


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... -purchase/

If this is in fact true, I'll be putting in my release from the Forces very soon.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 03:09
by hb_pencil
Actually the Globe and Mail is suggesting its $40 billion.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 03:19
by pushoksti
Anyone have it at $50 Billion yet?

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 03:33
by 1st503rdsgt
:applause: I wonder if this means any extra manufacturing jobs in the US now.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 03:45
by XanderCrews
1st503rdsgt wrote::applause: I wonder if this means any extra manufacturing jobs in the US now.


People are going to jump all over Canada's portions.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 03:49
by spazsinbad
My reading of the article in question suggests that there is not an official decision, only a source leaking to a journalist. "...the operations committee of cabinet decided Tuesday evening to scrap the controversial sole-source program and go back to the drawing board, a source familiar with the decision said." I'll wait for an official announcement. In Australia a 'leak' from Cabinet [breaking Cabinet confidentiality/and likely National Security in this instance] is regarded as very serious. I guess the Canadians have already shown that they are a bunch of amateurs over the last several years.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 03:52
by arrow-nautics
:bang:

We're not out of the F-35 purchase yet but this is an ominous sign. I wouldn't blame LM if they start pulling manufacturing out of Canada

Eg.

http://www.compositesatlantic.com/index ... therank=54

This is embarrassing & all of you non-Canadians out there - take your best shot - we deserve to get egged.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 03:56
by XanderCrews
arrow-nautics wrote::bang:

We're not out of the F-35 purchase yet but this is an ominous sign. I wouldn't blame LM if they start pulling manufacturing out of Canada

Eg.

http://www.compositesatlantic.com/index ... therank=54

This is embarrassing & all of you non-Canadians out there - take your best shot - we deserve to get egged.


I really am sorry, as a Canadian that supports the F-35 this must be frustrating

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 03:59
by bigjku
Frankly were I the US I strongly consider not allowing the export of anything else to Canada just to make them uncomfortable. I believe the US could stop Gripen (the only thing that might be cheaper) pretty easily.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 04:13
by spazsinbad
See... Bullshit Baffles Brains in the Canadian Media Cesspool...
F-35 deal not cancelled, Tories insist
Update on the government's plan to purchase new fighter jets expected next week
CBC News Posted: Dec 6, 2012

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... ml?cmp=rss

"The Harper government says it has not made a decision on the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's CF-18 fighter jets, but the government now appears to concede that alternative fighter purchase options will be considered.

The Prime Minister's Office denied a media report Thursday that the F-35 purchase was dead, calling the report "inaccurate on a number of fronts" and promising to update the House of Commons on its seven-point plan to replace the jets before the House rises for the Christmas break at the end of next week...."

Why bother reading any more - why bother reading any news about Canada which is not from an official source?

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 04:15
by arrow-nautics
XanderCrews wrote:I really am sorry, as a Canadian that supports the F-35 this must be frustrating


I definitely do not want the super bug or having to have ALQ-99 jammers & junk on our aircraft. The Typhoon would at least escape some embarrassment.

People are so down on stealth as is the media it's become the main criticism. But as we all know, the F-35's advantages go way beyond stealth & VLO tech. What about DAS & EOTS? The F-35 doesn't need all the E.W. (elec warfare) crap since it's already on board.

If we get the FA-18E or the Growler, I bet the junk costs such as jammers are going to cost more than the F-35...in the long run.

Just call us cowards who can't even meet our NATO GDP commitments as is.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 04:23
by bigjku
I am not sure why the US would allow Canada to buy any of those things. I believe that the US has ITAR control over Eurofighter to some degree. If Canada asked about F-18's I would just say no were I the US.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 04:40
by pushoksti
bigjku wrote:I am not sure why the US would allow Canada to buy any of those things. I believe that the US has ITAR control over Eurofighter to some degree. If Canada asked about F-18's I would just say no were I the US.


That would be a great day when the US tells Canada that only the F-35 is available to purchase.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 05:19
by spazsinbad
Fwit Canoodian 'yellojournalist' gets a cheap headline, then we have to suffer the myriad denials from the real press. Does this methodology sell newspapers? Probably only in Canada. Most of the rest of us have moved online. I guess the newsprint is luxury loo paper for the Canuks. :D

Canada says reviewing F-35 report, denies plan to cancel (Reporting by David Ljunggren in Ottawa and Andrea Shalal-Esa in Washington; Editing by Peter Cooney) 06 Dec 2012

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/ ... ME20121207

"...Andrew MacDougall, spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said the government was reviewing the report prepared by the accounting firm KPMG, but that reports indicating the government had decided to cancel its F-35 buy were false.

He said the government planned a "comprehensive public update" before the House of Commons takes a Christmas break at the end of next week.

"We are committed to completing the seven-point plan and moving forward with our comprehensive, transparent approach to replacing Canada's aging CF-18 aircraft." MacDougall told Reuters....

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 05:24
by delvo
That was fast. Offhand I can't think of another news issue for which the original was followed by a second round of headlines responding to it within a few hours.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 05:33
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Canada says reviewing F-35 report, denies plan to cancel (Reporting by David Ljunggren in Ottawa and Andrea Shalal-Esa in Washington; Editing by Peter Cooney) 06 Dec 2012

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/ ... ME20121207
I say it's a desperate effort to hang on to the economic benefits of JSF membership as long as possible without actually buying anything. I also say we kick them out of the program now and redistribute their share of the manufacturing workload as quickly as possible. If we don't, the Canadian government will still be denying reports of cancellation even as the last of their F/A-18s decay into dust.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 05:34
by spazsinbad
'delvo' opined: "That was fast...." This is the age of the internet. Soon to be even faster. Have you not heard of the 24 hour news cycle. Just B/S churned into a fine mist to be sprayed on your fertile fields. Have you ever been to Switzerland in Summer? It is called 'farmer's perfume' and boy does it pong. :D

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 15:06
by luke_sandoz
Prime Minister Harper treats the Canadian Press like he would treat dog doo-doo stuck on his shoe and it looks like all this journalistic hyperbole is just some payback from the journos.

Canada still needs to replace their Hornets and if they want to play fair, they'll look at the costs of 40 years of super Hornet or Rafale or Eurofighter acquisition and operational costs and be shocked by that price too.

Another day of Canadian journalism for our entertainment.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 15:26
by 1st503rdsgt
luke_sandoz wrote:Prime Minister Harper treats the Canadian Press like he would treat dog doo-doo stuck on his shoe and it looks like all this journalistic hyperbole is just some payback from the journos.

Canada still needs to replace their Hornets and if they want to play fair, they'll look at the costs of 40 years of super Hornet or Rafale or Eurofighter acquisition and operational costs and be shocked by that price too.

Another day of Canadian journalism for our entertainment.
Trouble is, those aircraft are already in service with known operational costs. With the F-35, any self-declared expert can make up whatever numbers he feels like.

Example: I could say that "the F-35 is prone to exploding mid-air after 2,000 hours on the airframe. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong. After all, I'm the expert that reporters call when they want a talking head. Even if you can prove me wrong, no one is going to know about it because I'm the one that's famous in journalistic circles."

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 16:13
by bigjku
It is things like this that make me as a US citizen want my leadership to do some renegotiation of the NATO and NORAD treaties. I want them re-written to require some level of relative equality in commitment by the various parties. Otherwise the US should just walk away. By my quick math the GDP of the big European NATO members and Canada (UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain) is roughly 90% of the GDP of the United States. Most of these nations can't lift a finger militarily without the US at this point. It is getting old in a hurry.

Pacifist Japan is more useful than Europe frankly in that it is at least a coherent force that can accomplish its own mission (defense of Japanese airspace). The European/Candaian forces just strike me as show ponies anymore. They have a reasonable number of fighters but not nearly enough tankers, AWACS, jamming support or stand off weapons for any of them. It looks pretty at airshows and other than that seems a very hollow force in a lot of ways.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 16:26
by 1st503rdsgt
bigjku wrote:It is things like this that make me as a US citizen want my leadership to do some renegotiation of the NATO and NORAD treaties. I want them re-written to require some level of relative equality in commitment by the various parties. Otherwise the US should just walk away. By my quick math the GDP of the big European NATO members and Canada (UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain) is roughly 90% of the GDP of the United States. Most of these nations can't lift a finger militarily without the US at this point. It is getting old in a hurry.

Pacifist Japan is more useful than Europe frankly in that it is at least a coherent force that can accomplish its own mission (defense of Japanese airspace). The European/Candaian forces just strike me as show ponies anymore. They have a reasonable number of fighters but not nearly enough tankers, AWACS, jamming support or stand off weapons for any of them. It looks pretty at airshows and other than that seems a very hollow force in a lot of ways.
Well, it's kinda hard to fund an all-inclusive social-welfare state whilst supporting anything more than a parade-ground military. NATO needs to be dumped and replaced by a series of bilateral agreements with nations that are willing to fund their own defense. I don't see why we have to keep picking up everyone else's security tab when all we get in return is jack-$hit and ridicule for being "militaristic."

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 17:24
by geogen
1st503rd et al, let's please leave out the politics?

For one thing, NATO is more geo-strategic based as a mutually-assuring hedge and in affirming strong ties in uncertain post-cold-war era, even as NATO downsizes considerably. (which it has and continues to do so)

Does NATO arguably need to be restructured and reformed today and every so often in the future according to aggregate developments of the world? No doubt and it probably should be done proactively in a calculated and strategic manner and not so by default -- forced under unexpected conditions.

As far as legit alternatives to to the F-35 for RCAF as it pertains to this thread, that is a highly valid and prudent strategic subject to take into consideration. imho.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 17:31
by maus92
1st503rdsgt wrote:
bigjku wrote:It is things like this that make me as a US citizen want my leadership to do some renegotiation of the NATO and NORAD treaties. I want them re-written to require some level of relative equality in commitment by the various parties. Otherwise the US should just walk away. By my quick math the GDP of the big European NATO members and Canada (UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain) is roughly 90% of the GDP of the United States. Most of these nations can't lift a finger militarily without the US at this point. It is getting old in a hurry.

Pacifist Japan is more useful than Europe frankly in that it is at least a coherent force that can accomplish its own mission (defense of Japanese airspace). The European/Candaian forces just strike me as show ponies anymore. They have a reasonable number of fighters but not nearly enough tankers, AWACS, jamming support or stand off weapons for any of them. It looks pretty at airshows and other than that seems a very hollow force in a lot of ways.
Well, it's kinda hard to fund an all-inclusive social-welfare state whilst supporting anything more than a parade-ground military. NATO needs to be dumped and replaced by a series of bilateral agreements with nations that are willing to fund their own defense. I don't see why we have to keep picking up everyone else's security tab when all we get in return is jack-$hit and ridicule for being "militaristic."


IDK, Sweden has a credible defense force, and a generous social support system - and they pay you to have kids!

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 17:58
by 1st503rdsgt
maus92 wrote:IDK, Sweden has a credible defense force, and a generous social support system - and they pay you to have kids!
Really? I've been hearing otherwise. Most recently... http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 18:04
by cola
Sweden has actually twice the fighter aircraft per capita, than the US.
Not sure why ppl here think that you need to bleed the society dry to have a solid army, but it certainly isn't so.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 18:47
by maus92
1st503rdsgt wrote:
maus92 wrote:IDK, Sweden has a credible defense force, and a generous social support system - and they pay you to have kids!
Really? I've been hearing otherwise. Most recently... http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE


Yup, really. High quality weapons in sufficient quantities to protect their sovereignty. There will always be lapses in funding - and poor allocation - and it is up to the political process to correct them. Sweden takes their neutrality seriously.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 19:07
by 1st503rdsgt
maus92 wrote:Yup, really. High quality weapons in sufficient quantities to protect their sovereignty.
Sufficient to protect their sovereignty from what exactly? Neutrality is only as good as your friends. Ask Belgium.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 19:24
by gtx
XanderCrews wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote::applause: I wonder if this means any extra manufacturing jobs in the US now.


People are going to jump all over Canada's portions.


You better beleive it...

...though I doubt Canada will actually not get the F-35.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 19:34
by gtx
maus92 wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
maus92 wrote:IDK, Sweden has a credible defense force, and a generous social support system - and they pay you to have kids!
Really? I've been hearing otherwise. Most recently... http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE


Yup, really. High quality weapons in sufficient quantities to protect their sovereignty. There will always be lapses in funding - and poor allocation - and it is up to the political process to correct them. Sweden takes their neutrality seriously.


Of course one must also remember that Sweden only does this because they rely heavily on other countries to help them develop their platforms including wholesale development of major subsystems...eg. where be the RM12 engine without the F404 ro indeed the GripenE/F without the F414?

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 19:41
by gtx
bigjku wrote:I am not sure why the US would allow Canada to buy any of those things. I believe that the US has ITAR control over Eurofighter to some degree. If Canada asked about F-18's I would just say no were I the US.


The USA would only have control over those elements that were US sourced or have US technology in them thus making them ITAR controlled. An example might be the MIDS terminal that provides Link 16 capability and is sourced from the USA I understand. Therefore, if the US really wanted to play hardball, they could only prevent the export of those subsystems. Of course, if this were a key element like the engine it could prevent the platform export as a whole (anyone remember the attempts to prevent Gripens going to South Africa based upon the F404?).

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 20:05
by XanderCrews
Comparing the US and Sweden is like comparing apples to chainsaws.

I'm going to put this very, very simply to avoid a long running political paragraph:

The USA spends hundreds of billions in defense so other nations don't have to. they get to spend that money on things like socialized medicine.

Don't think for a second that Canada spending only 20 billion a year on its military has nothing to do with the 700 billion dollar a year super power to its south. Many nations have gotten away with sending crumbs to defense while the US takes up the lion share of work, like say 11 Super Carriers. Global trade doesn't happen because sweden is neutral, or the UK hasn't mothballerd their Navy. It exists because the US Navy dominates the seas.

the UK and france COMBINED still needed loads of American help to take down a piddly country like Libya.

So please don't pull that crap. Its like a kid a who lives at home with his mom rent free so he can blow whole paychecks on video games and beer while she clocks in for another 12 hour shift.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 21:07
by luke_sandoz
1st503rdsgt wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:Prime Minister Harper treats the Canadian Press like he would treat dog doo-doo stuck on his shoe and it looks like all this journalistic hyperbole is just some payback from the journos.

Canada still needs to replace their Hornets and if they want to play fair, they'll look at the costs of 40 years of super Hornet or Rafale or Eurofighter acquisition and operational costs and be shocked by that price too.

Another day of Canadian journalism for our entertainment.
Trouble is, those aircraft are already in service with known operational costs. With the F-35, any self-declared expert can make up whatever numbers he feels like.

Example: I could say that "the F-35 is prone to exploding mid-air after 2,000 hours on the airframe. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong. After all, I'm the expert that reporters call when they want a talking head. Even if you can prove me wrong, no one is going to know about it because I'm the one that's famous in journalistic circles."


True. But the limitations of all the other aircraft are also known. The RCAF can come back and show some typical missions that would take 12-18 Super Hornet/Rafale/Typhoon packages that could be flown by a F-35 4 pack.

The RCAF could also come up with the additional number of other aircraft types Canada would need to procure to cover the same mission capability set as the F-35.

And they should really, really put paid to the claims the other 4.5 gen aircraft are "almost as stealthy" as the F-35.

Almost and only when they are unarmed and not carrying any external fuel.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 21:37
by neptune
Sixty-five or one hundred and sixty-five a/c will not make or break this program. I hope Canada can buy the plane they need. For the pundits, what is the fifty year cost of owning and operating the F/A-18E/F? Please add in the current upgrades as planned by the USN. :)

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 21:47
by 1st503rdsgt
luke_sandoz wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:Prime Minister Harper treats the Canadian Press like he would treat dog doo-doo stuck on his shoe and it looks like all this journalistic hyperbole is just some payback from the journos.

Canada still needs to replace their Hornets and if they want to play fair, they'll look at the costs of 40 years of super Hornet or Rafale or Eurofighter acquisition and operational costs and be shocked by that price too.

Another day of Canadian journalism for our entertainment.
Trouble is, those aircraft are already in service with known operational costs. With the F-35, any self-declared expert can make up whatever numbers he feels like.

Example: I could say that "the F-35 is prone to exploding mid-air after 2,000 hours on the airframe. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong. After all, I'm the expert that reporters call when they want a talking head. Even if you can prove me wrong, no one is going to know about it because I'm the one that's famous in journalistic circles."
True. But the limitations of all the other aircraft are also known. The RCAF can come back and show some typical missions that would take 12-18 Super Hornet/Rafale/Typhoon packages that could be flown by a F-35 4 pack.
The RCAF could also come up with the additional number of other aircraft types Canada would need to procure to cover the same mission capability set as the F-35.
And they should really, really put paid to the claims the other 4.5 gen aircraft are "almost as stealthy" as the F-35.
Almost and only when they are unarmed and not carrying any external fuel.
Yes, but I'm the public figure being interviewed on TV. I cater to people's fears that there's a conspiracy by the big-bad American Military Industrial Complex to foist expensive weapons upon them. So, when I get on my snark and tell them that the F-35 is a dog, they listen. When I make cost estimates based on LRIP, they listen. When I tell them that other planes are just as good... they listen. If you try to argue with me, I can simply dismiss your sources as marketing propaganda, or, if your source is a military professional, I'll just say that person is following orders. In any case, I'm a lot more famous than you. No one reads what you write, and even if they did, chances are that they wouldn't understand it. I go for the general audience, and no one pays attention to the guy who agrees with government and business.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 22:30
by KamenRiderBlade
1st503rdsgt wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:Prime Minister Harper treats the Canadian Press like he would treat dog doo-doo stuck on his shoe and it looks like all this journalistic hyperbole is just some payback from the journos.

Canada still needs to replace their Hornets and if they want to play fair, they'll look at the costs of 40 years of super Hornet or Rafale or Eurofighter acquisition and operational costs and be shocked by that price too.

Another day of Canadian journalism for our entertainment.
Trouble is, those aircraft are already in service with known operational costs. With the F-35, any self-declared expert can make up whatever numbers he feels like.

Example: I could say that "the F-35 is prone to exploding mid-air after 2,000 hours on the airframe. Go ahead, try to prove me wrong. After all, I'm the expert that reporters call when they want a talking head. Even if you can prove me wrong, no one is going to know about it because I'm the one that's famous in journalistic circles."
True. But the limitations of all the other aircraft are also known. The RCAF can come back and show some typical missions that would take 12-18 Super Hornet/Rafale/Typhoon packages that could be flown by a F-35 4 pack.
The RCAF could also come up with the additional number of other aircraft types Canada would need to procure to cover the same mission capability set as the F-35.
And they should really, really put paid to the claims the other 4.5 gen aircraft are "almost as stealthy" as the F-35.
Almost and only when they are unarmed and not carrying any external fuel.
Yes, but I'm the public figure being interviewed on TV. I cater to people's fears that there's a conspiracy by the big-bad American Military Industrial Complex to foist expensive weapons upon them. So, when I get on my snark and tell them that the F-35 is a dog, they listen. When I make cost estimates based on LRIP, they listen. When I tell them that other planes are just as good... they listen. If you try to argue with me, I can simply dismiss your sources as marketing propaganda, or, if your source is a military professional, I'll just say that person is following orders. In any case, I'm a lot more famous than you. No one reads what you write, and even if they did, chances are that they wouldn't understand it. I go for the general audience, and no one pays attention to the guy who agrees with government and business.


Wow, you really sound evil when you post this. Kinda sad really and disappointing.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 22:43
by 1st503rdsgt
kamenriderblade wrote:Wow, you really sound evil when you post this. Kinda sad really and disappointing.
I do sound evil there, but the sarcasm has apparently been lost on you.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 22:48
by maus92
1st503rdsgt wrote:
maus92 wrote:Yup, really. High quality weapons in sufficient quantities to protect their sovereignty.
Sufficient to protect their sovereignty from what exactly? Neutrality is only as good as your friends. Ask Belgium.


Any and all aggressors. It used to be, and mostly still is, the Russians.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 22:56
by KamenRiderBlade
Sarcasm doesn't convey well over text message board postings on the net.

Please use [Sarcasm] ... [/Sarcasm] tags to be 100% clear with your audience.

:cheers:

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 22:57
by maus92
luke_sandoz wrote:
Almost and only when they are unarmed and not carrying any external fuel.


Super Hornets have removable / optional RAM "treatment" that are installed / applied when the mission dictates. Some of this RAM is applied to areas of the weapons stations to help reduce radar signature.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 22:58
by 1st503rdsgt
maus92 wrote:
1st503rdsgt wrote:
maus92 wrote:Yup, really. High quality weapons in sufficient quantities to protect their sovereignty.
Sufficient to protect their sovereignty from what exactly? Neutrality is only as good as your friends. Ask Belgium.
Any and all aggressors. It used to be, and mostly still is, the Russians.
On their own? Eh... sure, why not? :roll:

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 23:04
by f-22lm
I can't wait for those Avro-Arrows to get up the air... :roll:

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 23:09
by 1st503rdsgt
maus92 wrote:Super Hornets have removable / optional RAM "treatment" that are installed / applied when the mission dictates. Some of this RAM is applied to areas of the weapons stations to help reduce radar signature.
Well, it isn't as simple as the magic-box-of-stealth jamming idea; but I suppose reducing VLO to a mere matter of trim pieces (in one's own mind) accomplishes the same purpose. Reminds me of people who stick "GT" badges and faux hood-scoops on their V6 Mustangs.

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2012, 23:31
by neurotech
maus92 wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:
Almost and only when they are unarmed and not carrying any external fuel.


Super Hornets have removable / optional RAM "treatment" that are installed / applied when the mission dictates. Some of this RAM is applied to areas of the weapons stations to help reduce radar signature.

Not quite that simple. The LO/RAM pylons are available when needed. For training/test flights they sometimes use older pylons to save costs. Early in the F/A-18E/F program, they were actually short on pylons for the jets in service, so most were not the LO version now in fleet deployment. There are plans to create LO external tanks.

The RAM is not some "bolt on" equipment, although for various reasons (usually maintenance related) they don't always fit the RAM after a repair, but they don't remove it unnecessarily either.

Deployed (combat coded) aircraft have more stringent RAM requirements and checks, than training/chase/test jets.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 00:42
by Gums
Salute!

It comes down to mission requirements for the RCAF.

Somehow, I don't get the impression that the Canadians are gearing up for anything but self-defense and maybe an augmenting role in something really big. Not the 'stan, but something bigger and versus a very capable adversary.

I don't blame them.

Back in 1980, I tried to convinve the visiting Cannucks that the Viper was a better deal, a bigger bang for the buck, interceptor, ground attack, etc. No dice. They wanted two motors and at the time the Viper radar did not have the "magic", tiny transmitter dude that allowed use of the Sparrow. BFD! AMRAAM was abouit to be fielded, and no big expense to use on the Viper. In fact, due to the Viper 1553 MUX BUS, we got the Slammer sooner than the Eagle.

Oh well.

Gotta look at your nation's requirements and then go with the $$$ ya got.

Gums sends...

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 02:14
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:
Almost and only when they are unarmed and not carrying any external fuel.


Super Hornets have removable / optional RAM "treatment" that are installed / applied when the mission dictates. Some of this RAM is applied to areas of the weapons stations to help reduce radar signature.


I love how when we talk about the F-35, its VLO is overly expensive and unneeded and you can get just as good a result by jamming, then the next breathe its "but the Super Hornet has treated pylons!"

I have never seen such a double set of standards. I am supposed to be unimpressed with the F-35s VLO and internal carry, and yet do cartwheels when the F-18 has treated pylons. Wow!! What about the stuff hanging from those treated pylons?

Surely you have to see the difference Maus92? You aren't really trying to convince everyone here that treated pylons make an F-18 competitive. This is what we would call in my business a "feeble response" Where in someone is confronted with a terrible truth like being shot in the gut and the feeble response is a band aid over the wound. You keep trying to convince us that with enough band aids the wound will stop bleeding, and that may work on some audiences but the people around this forum seem to know their stuff.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 02:37
by XanderCrews
1st503rdsgt wrote:Yes, but I'm the public figure being interviewed on TV. I cater to people's fears that there's a conspiracy by the big-bad American Military Industrial Complex to foist expensive weapons upon them. So, when I get on my snark and tell them that the F-35 is a dog, they listen. When I make cost estimates based on LRIP, they listen. When I tell them that other planes are just as good... they listen. If you try to argue with me, I can simply dismiss your sources as marketing propaganda, or, if your source is a military professional, I'll just say that person is following orders. In any case, I'm a lot more famous than you. No one reads what you write, and even if they did, chances are that they wouldn't understand it. I go for the general audience, and no one pays attention to the guy who agrees with government and business.


Pretty much hit it right on the head!

I will add to this and say its also very much in vogue to trash new weapon systems. And in the F-35 to induce price shock with the huge costs associated with a huge project. Not to mention the "nostalgia" of the aircraft that is serving that nation for decades that the general public takes pride in. In Canada's case its the CF-18.

The F-35 also has revolutionary systems that the "old guard" can't or refuse to comprehend which is why when we talk about DAS or EOTS or highly maneuverable missiles,we get responses like "yeah but does it have a gun?" How do you explain the advantage of the expensive VLO fighter, or BVR when everyone is convinced its pilots squinting for canopy glints in search of the enemy before the swirling dogfight, because they think that the new tech is impossible?

The Media basically broadcasts how overwhelmingly expensive it is and then as an afterthought mentions a few attributes but that is often tempered with a "but that is also in doubt" See Stealth or the Helmet with the F-35.Every mouth breathing moron stops paying attention after they hear the cost and that its not working.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 03:17
by maus92
neurotech wrote:
maus92 wrote:
luke_sandoz wrote:
Almost and only when they are unarmed and not carrying any external fuel.


Super Hornets have removable / optional RAM "treatment" that are installed / applied when the mission dictates. Some of this RAM is applied to areas of the weapons stations to help reduce radar signature.

Not quite that simple. The LO/RAM pylons are available when needed. For training/test flights they sometimes use older pylons to save costs. Early in the F/A-18E/F program, they were actually short on pylons for the jets in service, so most were not the LO version now in fleet deployment. There are plans to create LO external tanks.

The RAM is not some "bolt on" equipment, although for various reasons (usually maintenance related) they don't always fit the RAM after a repair, but they don't remove it unnecessarily either.

Deployed (combat coded) aircraft have more stringent RAM requirements and checks, than training/chase/test jets.


Not saying it's simple or cheap, but it is available, and is in fact "bolt on" in some cases. When it is needed, it is (and should be) available. Which is the entire point.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 03:35
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:I love how when we talk about the F-35, its VLO is overly expensive and unneeded and you can get just as good a result by jamming, then the next breathe its "but the Super Hornet has treated pylons!"

I have never seen such a double set of standards. I am supposed to be unimpressed with the F-35s VLO and internal carry, and yet do cartwheels when the F-18 has treated pylons. Wow!! What about the stuff hanging from those treated pylons?

Here is the thing, they could put a giant radar reflector on a F-35, to give it the RCS of an older F-16C, and it would still be worth operating because of its EODAS & internal weapons.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 04:01
by hb_pencil
National Post has a copy it seems... it sheds a lot of light on the subject.


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... ew-report/

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 04:09
by maus92
neurotech wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I love how when we talk about the F-35, its VLO is overly expensive and unneeded and you can get just as good a result by jamming, then the next breathe its "but the Super Hornet has treated pylons!"

I have never seen such a double set of standards. I am supposed to be unimpressed with the F-35s VLO and internal carry, and yet do cartwheels when the F-18 has treated pylons. Wow!! What about the stuff hanging from those treated pylons?

Here is the thing, they could put a giant radar reflector on a F-35, to give it the RCS of an older F-16C, and it would still be worth operating because of its EODAS & internal weapons.
In this scenario, internal weps give you nothing other than the possibility of less drag. Better carriage - no. Targeting? Maybe over a F-16, but not over a new F/A-18.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 04:53
by neurotech
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:Here is the thing, they could put a giant radar reflector on a F-35, to give it the RCS of an older F-16C, and it would still be worth operating because of its EODAS & internal weapons.
In this scenario, internal weps give you nothing other than the possibility of less drag. Better carriage - no. Targeting? Maybe over a F-16, but not over a new F/A-18.

Umm.. a new F/A-18E/F doesn't have EODAS? JHMCS is available. IRST is available via pod. EODAS is used for situation awareness & threat detection on a F-35.

One of the biggest "issues" with the F/A-18E/F Block I/II is the draggy canted pylons. Internal weapons is huge advantage due to lower drag, as well as RCS reduction.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 05:17
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:Here is the thing, they could put a giant radar reflector on a F-35, to give it the RCS of an older F-16C, and it would still be worth operating because of its EODAS & internal weapons.
In this scenario, internal weps give you nothing other than the possibility of less drag. Better carriage - no. Targeting? Maybe over a F-16, but not over a new F/A-18.

Umm.. a new F/A-18E/F doesn't have EODAS? JHMCS is available. IRST is available via pod. EODAS is used for situation awareness & threat detection on a F-35.

One of the biggest "issues" with the F/A-18E/F Block I/II is the draggy canted pylons. Internal weapons is huge advantage due to lower drag, as well as RCS reduction.


Its time to acknowledge not that the Super Hornet is bad, but that the JSF is better and more capable.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 05:36
by checksixx
neurotech wrote:Umm.. a new F/A-18E/F doesn't have EODAS? JHMCS is available. IRST is available via pod. EODAS is used for situation awareness & threat detection on a F-35.


IRST is NOT available. If its fielded its not even due until 2016-2017 time frame. Not to mention the VERY limited benefit it would give due to its design and location.

Image

EODAS on the F-35 is used for targeting, imaging, navigation, threat detection and tracking, etc.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 06:10
by neurotech
checksixx wrote:
neurotech wrote:Umm.. a new F/A-18E/F doesn't have EODAS? JHMCS is available. IRST is available via pod. EODAS is used for situation awareness & threat detection on a F-35.


IRST is NOT available. If its fielded its not even due until 2016-2017 time frame. Not to mention the VERY limited benefit it would give due to its design and location.

EODAS on the F-35 is used for targeting, imaging, navigation, threat detection and tracking, etc.

Your image is blocked(when hot-linked, but not after visiting the page);
http://defense-update.com/20110721_supe ... pment.html

The F/A-18E/F IRST your referring to is a low-risk COTS sensor/targetting in a fuel tank, they could have in the fleet before the end of FY2014 if Navy writes a check. The F/A-18E/F sometimes carries a "camera" pod for chase flights, that uses a similar sensor (no laser, but search/tracking) to the proposed one, except that its not in a fuel tank.

Your comment regarding location/design reinforces my point. The F/A-18E/F is a great jet, and has advantages, but the F-35 is a better jet against IADS in combat, largely because of its EODAS design, sensor fusion and improved range on internal fuel. This is apart from the LO features.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 07:37
by spazsinbad
Blocked image above attached here now from: http://defense-update.com/wp-content/up ... c_irst.jpg

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 16:11
by geogen
neurotech wrote:
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:Here is the thing, they could put a giant radar reflector on a F-35, to give it the RCS of an older F-16C, and it would still be worth operating because of its EODAS & internal weapons.
In this scenario, internal weps give you nothing other than the possibility of less drag. Better carriage - no. Targeting? Maybe over a F-16, but not over a new F/A-18.

Umm.. a new F/A-18E/F doesn't have EODAS? JHMCS is available. IRST is available via pod. EODAS is used for situation awareness & threat detection on a F-35.

One of the biggest "issues" with the F/A-18E/F Block I/II is the draggy canted pylons. Internal weapons is huge advantage due to lower drag, as well as RCS reduction.


No doubt EODAS appears to be a highly capable future passive SA and target-cueing system for future operation.

That's not the specific question here though if one is to nitpick. Currently (hypothetical FY14 buy), an F-18EF block II+ with Type IV computer, large aperture IRST Tank and a 1k FLIR G4 Litening pod eg, (with upgrade retrofit option to next-gen SE pod) would in fact likely enable superior long-range SA and long-range targeting capabilities over a stock F-35 block III and for about 1/2 the cost.

As far as how those particular performance specs as they relate to F-18EF might weigh in for any potential F-35 customer to soon seek an alternative platform option, that will have to be seen.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 17:35
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
That's not the specific question here though if one is to nitpick. Currently (hypothetical FY14 buy), an F-18EF block II+ with Type IV computer, large aperture IRST Tank and a 1k FLIR G4 Litening pod eg, (with upgrade retrofit option to next-gen SE pod) would in fact likely enable superior long-range SA and long-range targeting capabilities over a stock F-35 block III and for about 1/2 the cost.



the KPMG report says that the F-35 in full production would be $88 million, according to good ol Wikipedia a 2012 F-18E/F is $66.9 million and that wouldn't include the targeting pod and IRST tank... how is that "1/2 the cost?" especially when the price of F-18s is expected to rise due to production winding down?
:?:

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 19:33
by SpudmanWP
The ESM & radar of the F-35 puts the F-18E Blk2+ to shame.

ROE says you have to know what you are shooting at before Fox3. Nothing beats the F-35 at this, not even the F-22.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 20:03
by luke_sandoz
When you filter through the crap presented by Canadian journalsists today you get the bottom line . . .

"On tap now is a competition among at least five aircraft, including Dassault’s Rafale, Boeing’s Super Hornet, Saab’s Gripen, the Eurofighter Typhoon, and Lockheed Martin’s F-35, to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s. Industry players have quietly been led to expect this will flow from the current “options analysis” underway in Ottawa ....

So when they find out how limited the capabilities of the competition are and what they cost, including a second competition to replace obsolete platforms halfway through the 42 year costed period, Canadians will be shocked at how inexpensive the F-35s are.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 20:11
by neurotech
SpudmanWP wrote:The ESM & radar of the F-35 puts the F-18E Blk2+ to shame.
(ESM=Electronic Support Measures, correct?)
That's a little debatable Spud as Block II jets have certain features from the EA-18Gs, particularly in signal processing avionics. Balance that with the software as loaded onto early F-35s, and its a toss up. If I was the Brazilian Air Force (or RCAF), I'd be asking for Growler "Lite" configuration, with full wiring and enhanced EW suite, and use AGM-88s as needed. Were talking about ESM here, not sensor fusion or EODAS. The F/A-18G+ would be a fine complement to a F-35, just not as stealthy.
SpudmanWP wrote:ROE says you have to know what you are shooting at before Fox3. Nothing beats the F-35 at this, not even the F-22.

The ROE restrictions is why F-14s used to have a rifle mounted scope in the cockpit. Later versions used the TCS(TV Camera Set) system for Visual ID of bandits. The EODAS is likely considerably better than the F-14s TCS in terms of range, and imager performance. In the Gulf War, they insisted the F-14s have enhanced IFF confirmation, not just visual ID, which meant that the F-14s stayed out of most of the actual dogfights.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 20:17
by gtx
I am sure the money to be spent (wasted) on this new 'competition' would have been much more appreciated by Canadian industry to help them win opportunities in the F-35... :roll:

Mind you, it will give the detractors something to carry on about. In fact, I am sure the likes of Bill Sweetman can crank out dozens of stories thanks to this...

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 20:30
by SpudmanWP
Several things about the F-35's avionics outmatch the F-18E Blk2+

1. It's avionics are mostly software based and will be updated with new blocks every 2-3 years with hardware upgraded every-other-block (4-6 years).
2. The F-35's radar and ESM are connected via a fiber-optic link and are virtually a single component.
3. The F-35's ESM spanks even the EF-18G in detection capability
4. The F-35 can ID a target using nearly 600 parameters. Given that the F-22 uses a third of that, I don't give the F-18 much of a chance.
5. The F-35's LPI & directional datalinks allow the F-35 to share an automatically collaborate sensor data to build a picture of the battlefield without worrying about giving away their presence from the use of datalinks.
6. The F-35 can use new weapons as they come online via UAI without the need, time, or expense of block upgrades.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 20:33
by spazsinbad
Amy Butler has a long 'think' piece here about 'Does it matter if Canada bails?' (Can someone explain what 'topline' means in the context of the article please? Thanks. I have looked at online definitions but none seem to fit - yes words have two meanings according to Led Zeppelin.)

Maybe Another F-35 Defection...How Much Should It Matter? by Amy Butler, Dec 07, 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 2384a2d375

"...Canada announced in July 2010 it planned to buy 65 F-35s at a cost of roughly $9 billion. But, concern that the cost estimates were overly optimistic has prompted another review of alternatives. This opens the door, once again, to a sale of Boeing F/A-18E/Fs (Australia’s impatience over F-35 has kept that line humming), Eurofighters or, possibly, F-16s. But, it does not close the door to the F-35.

While this is big news in Canada, and in the international realm, I do question what it means in the big picture for the F-35 program...."

And let us repeat once again that Oz bought Super Hornets to replace the earlier than expected loss of F-111s. Yes like everyone else we are impatient with F-35 but did not buy Shornets because of it. PuhLeeze.

Curious to me use of 'topline'. Huh? "...So, should we really buy the idea that a single F-35 defection alone – or even one that triggers a mass exodus – could tank the program? I go back to my earlier point. The lion’s share of the F-35 lies with the U.S. Air Force. As long as the Air Force is willing to pay whatever it has to in order to buy the aircraft, it will move forward. Period. And, the service has a topline. Its goal is to squeeze as many jets out of that topline as possible. So, I’m sure the guys in blue want international buys to bring down the price. But, they aren’t marketing it that way...."

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 20:34
by neurotech
gtx wrote:I am sure the money to be spent (wasted) on this new 'competition' would have been much more appreciated by Canadian industry to help them win opportunities in the F-35... :roll:

It'd almost be cheaper to hedge their bets, lease/buy/borrow some F/A-18Fs from Boeing and/or US Navy inventory. Fly them for 4-10 years, with extension option and save this B***S**t (forget saving Bill Sweetman!). Buy the F-35s on the understanding that Canada can send them back to the USAF if they change their mind, which the RCAF probably wont actually want to do.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 20:38
by f-22lm
Wonder if the US is planning to give the 65 jets to the arab instead. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 20:45
by gtx
spazsinbad wrote:Can someone explain what 'topline' means in the context of the article please?


My reading is that she is referring to a total amount it wants to/is allowed to spend. Basically the budget allowance they have. The line "Its goal is to squeeze as many jets out of that topline as possible." is the telling one.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 20:48
by spazsinbad
'gtx' - got it "topline = budget allowance" - thanks. [Web definitions: 'topline' = "The upper curvature of a horse's withers, back, and loin;" in other words - a horse's ****. :D ]

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 20:49
by neurotech
f-22lm wrote:Wonder if the US is planning to give the 65 jets to the arab instead. :roll:

Unlikely, because neither the UAE or Saudi's are JSF partners, and "giving" them jets before the partners had received the IOC jets they ordered, would create problems.

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2012, 22:37
by spazsinbad
Will pigs fly? Will this happen?

In the F-35 fiasco, truth is the first casualty 08 Dec 2012 Adrian Wyld/THE CANADIAN PRESS

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... t-casualty

"...However you work the bottom line, the F-35 has become a pricey political fiasco. Canadians deserve better, going forward. We need a defence minister with the authority to speak to the costs and trade-offs. We need an apples-to-apples comparison of the unit costs, plus the full life-cycle costs, of each of the planes being considered. And we need to know what benefits manufacturers are prepared to offer to get our business."

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 01:03
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Will pigs fly? Will this happen?

In the F-35 fiasco, truth is the first casualty 08 Dec 2012 Adrian Wyld/THE CANADIAN PRESS

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editoria ... t-casualty

"...However you work the bottom line, the F-35 has become a pricey political fiasco. Canadians deserve better, going forward. We need a defence minister with the authority to speak to the costs and trade-offs. We need an apples-to-apples comparison of the unit costs, plus the full life-cycle costs, of each of the planes being considered. And we need to know what benefits manufacturers are prepared to offer to get our business."


"]
5..4..3...2...1 wrote:
delvo wrote:They still haven't been challenged. All that's been done so far is imitation of the look.
1. PAK FA prototypes have logged in more than 130+ flights.
2. Testing has begun with Tikhomirov new AESA on T-50-3 about 4 months ago.
3. T-50-2 has hooked up with a tanker five times during inflight refueling trials.
4. T-50-1 has begin high angles of attack and super maneuverability tests.
5. Weapon trials are set to begin next year.
6. Sometime early next year PAK FA forth prototype (T-50-4) is set fly.


I can't speak for J-20 and J-31, but PAK FA will definitely hit IOC within the next 4 years.
I didn't say that another plane imitating the "stealth look" can't fly or do basics like refueling in flight. I said it's no challenge.[/quote]

No challenge? If PAK FA RCS even gets near the F-35 numbers, then your wonder plane doesn't have a prayer. :lol:[/quote]
Well, I won't think PAK-FA imitates stealth look, I'd say the design of T-50 didn't take 0 1RCS reduction as a high priority. Sukhoi probably has their own philosophy.
They didn't bother to hide engine turbine blades, you can see them from most frontal angle. No flat lower fuselage, no edge serration, not much planform alignment. Actually, Chengdu J-20 has shown more serious consideration on these areas, with chined nose, one-piece coated canopy, DSI inlets, etc.[/quote]


Head of UAC already said that production PAK FA will have F-22 style nozzles, which means Su-xx rear rcs will be superior to the F-35, which in turn translates to bad news for F-35 fanboys here

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 01:38
by borntoholdout
Is India going to be at red flag 2020? :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 03:16
by F16VIPER
I just finished watching (very late I might add) the Runaway Fighter
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2012-2013/2012/ ... ghter.html

I am now more convinced than ever that the whole Canadian programme is a scam
No accountability, lies, deception, half truths. What really pisses me off is when
these politicians refuse to explain the process, expenditure, long term impacts,
specially debt etc etc. Who do they think they are. They are supposed to represent the
people, not Lockheedmartin.
Do they really think that Canadians are that stupid?

Cancel the damn thing and start again.

If that happens in Australia I would say the exactly the same, despite of what I might think of the plane.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 04:38
by arrow-nautics
Image

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 04:39
by spazsinbad
'F16VIPER' "if what happens in Australia" and why not some other place? What? Are you talking about a competition? Compete with what I may ask - the alsorans? Don't give me bollocks about the alsorans. Who cares about the alsorans.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 04:50
by F16VIPER
Sorry my friend, but this is to cryptic for me!

I said Australia because I am an Australian living in Sydney and we had had chats offline (f16viperman), so we live in the same area.
I am also interested to know how the issue is addressed in the Netherlands, Norway etc. And I repeat, I am not talking about the
future potential of the plane, I am concerned about flawed process, unknow cost etc.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 04:58
by bigjku
F16VIPER wrote:Sorry my friend, but this is to cryptic for me!

I said Australia because I am an Australian living in Sydney and we had had chats offline (f16viperman), so we live in the same area.
I am also interested to know how the issue is addressed in the Netherlands, Norway etc. And I repeat, I am not talking about the
future potential of the plane, I am concerned about flawed process, unknow cost etc.


I will be honest...I watched your movie until Sprey came on. That guy is a hack and if he is a major player in what you are looking at then god help you. The guy is a clown.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 05:09
by F16VIPER
I am not defending him but so shocked about the continuous abuse he receives from this online forum.
But again, as I said above I am talking about the "aparent" ineptitude, lack of honesty, ethics, concern, process, accountability
of the government not the plane. I am talking about the pressure that the US government exerted over Norway to avoid having a competition.
The whole thing is just apalling. We are talking about billions of dollars committed by a government with a prime minister that does not even know or wants to know, or does not want to reveal the cost of the programme to the Canadian taxpayer.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 05:12
by bigjku
F16VIPER wrote:I am not defending him but so shocked about the continuous abuse he receives from this online forum.
But again, as I said above I am talking about the "aparent" ineptitude, lack of honesty, ethics, concern, process, accountability
of the government not the plane. I am talking about the pressure that the US government exerted over Norway to avoid having a competition.
The whole thing is just apalling. We are talking about billions of dollars committed by a government with a prime minister that does not even know or wants to know, or does not want to reveal the cost of the programme to the Canadian taxpayer.


I have to ask...if the US is providing lets say 80% of the actual deliverable force for NATO should it not exert pressure to have people buy the fighter it wants them to buy?

I decided to try to slog through the video. It is a trainwreck 4 minutes in where it stated that the F-35 was built for the Navy, Air Force and Army.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 05:12
by arrow-nautics
F16VIPER, yeah (From The Fifth Estate) the government was pathetic on this file starting out with a assertion it'd be 9 billion acquisition & maintenance. I think the CF-18 bill for maintenance is 7 to 9 billion since 1982. This made the assertion laughable, thus obviously fake. But they wanted to win an election. They should have pegged the cost to at least 20 billion. Right there in the one simple moment they maybe killed the F-35. I don't want to get into too much poli stuff so I'll just finish by saying that the Conservatives want the F-35 but they're the most bungling salesmen for it. Your best salesmen shouldn't be dumping in the bed.

The Fifth Estate report was also improperly biased against the F-35. They called it "Runaway Fighter"? Maybe it's true it'll be expensive but to call the documentary that was not fair. Can they see the future?

Also I was heavily annoyed by Pierre Sprey with his foolish ideas about loitering on the battlefield. He's obviously advocating the F-16 & the A-10 as excellent loitering aircraft & they are the best. But, his criticisms on the F-35 directly were not logical. The CF-18's are not nearly as loiterable as the F-16 for gun straffing runs. Some general in Washington says the F-35 is built to replace the A-10. These ideas are proactively mentioned as being true, that the F-35B is replacing the A-10. This makes Pierre Sprey someone annoyed. If you watch the program again - consider this; is Pierre Sprey advocating Canada buy the A-10? Why would Canada need the A-10? I mean, Pierre, this is about a Canadian purchase & you're up here giving your STOVL sucks argument when we're maybe buying the CTOL? Out of context!

The evidence put forth in that low grade silly documentary proves the CBC is going broke & let's face it, They should have also done a part 2 to explain proactively the positives regarding other acquisitions. It'd be nice if the CBC would educate the public like I have belonging to this very board.

:(

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 05:19
by bigjku
Let's just track the false claims in this report.

1. The program then claims the aircraft is supposed to be faster and more agile than anything that came before it. No one in the F-35 program ever claimed that either. I don't think anyone who put this together knows the first thing about anything.

2. Sprey starts yacking about how the F-15 is a dog, which is stupid.

3. Claim Sprey "designed" the F-16 and A-10. Which is a flat a$$ lie.

4. Ignores the F-16's early problems and the fact that development of the F-16 took it far from what it was under his outlook.

5. Bitches about internal carriage, and never mentions that the F-117 destroyed Iraq's IADS with two bombs.

6. Ignores that you could carry more bombs internally if you wanted and says it is limited to 2 bombs only.

That is section 1.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 05:29
by spazsinbad
'F16VIPER' says: "I said Australia because I am an Australian living in Sydney and we had had chats offline (f16viperman),..." AFAIK we have had one interchange via this forum on the PM system about a .PPT file (the message is still in my PM inbox). Who is 'f16viperman' {be afraid - be very afraid - it was not me}? Why are you so concerned about Canada?

ADDITION Looks like our RAAF are test flying other birds anyways:

Australian chief of air force air marshal Geoffrey Brown flies Su-30 08 Dec 2012

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 527161.cms

"JODHPUR: Australian Chief of Air Force Air Marshal Geoffrey Brown tried his hands on India's frontline fighter plane on Friday. Brown is on a two-day visit to Jodhpur air force station. Jodhpur air base had deployed one squadron of Sukhoi last year and will be soon getting another squadron.

According to sources, Brown expressed his wish to fly Su-30 on Friday noon. "He flew it over the base as a small sortie and landed at the base expressing his delight at the experience," told a source...."

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 05:32
by bigjku
Section 2

1. Apparently it is bad that Canadian industry had to "compete" for jobs.

2. Canadian business are doing fantastic. Morons in Fort Worth are screwing it all up.

3. I don't understand the criticism of making a decision to move forward with buying something before it flies. No one has even asked Canada to do that at this point. Canada as far as I know has bought nothing.

4. It is normal not to get classified information without putting some money on the table. That is just common sense.

5. The understanding of stealth on this program is just a joke. You are going to cite one airplane being shot down after that type went downtime time after time after time with success. Not a single hard question about stealth is every asked of anyone on that subject. If stealth was such a waste of money than explain GW1?

6. The whole Norway thing just cracks me up. So the US was evil because it did not hand over technology to Sweden to sell Swedish fighters to the detriment of American jobs and the American military? Is this really evil or just common sense?

What a load of crap.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 05:42
by maus92
neurotech wrote:
checksixx wrote:
neurotech wrote:Umm.. a new F/A-18E/F doesn't have EODAS? JHMCS is available. IRST is available via pod. EODAS is used for situation awareness & threat detection on a F-35.


IRST is NOT available. If its fielded its not even due until 2016-2017 time frame. Not to mention the VERY limited benefit it would give due to its design and location.

EODAS on the F-35 is used for targeting, imaging, navigation, threat detection and tracking, etc.

Your image is blocked(when hot-linked, but not after visiting the page);
http://defense-update.com/20110721_supe ... pment.html

The F/A-18E/F IRST your referring to is a low-risk COTS sensor/targetting in a fuel tank, they could have in the fleet before the end of FY2014 if Navy writes a check. The F/A-18E/F sometimes carries a "camera" pod for chase flights, that uses a similar sensor (no laser, but search/tracking) to the proposed one, except that its not in a fuel tank.

Your comment regarding location/design reinforces my point. The F/A-18E/F is a great jet, and has advantages, but the F-35 is a better jet against IADS in combat, largely because of its EODAS design, sensor fusion and improved range on internal fuel. This is apart from the LO features.


IRST Block 1 IOC 2013. 170 systems planned.
Distributed Targeting System OT 2012, IOC ~2013/4
Multi Sensor Integration Phase 1 (of 3) OT 2012, fleeted 2013.
ATFLIR is delivered with every new build jet.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 05:45
by bigjku
Part 3.

1. So run your own competition. No one is stopping you. Feel free to try to define your own requirements and see how many people step up to build it for you clowns.

2. It is great that this program doubles down on its stupidity by getting Mr. Wheeler involved. Good grief.

3. The guy pretty much said exactly what he said. $9 billion for 65 airplanes to buy the stupid things and the things you need to begin to operate them. How in the tap dancing hell are you supposed to cost estimate the weapons for the thing? Let me give you a hint. If Canada arms them like they do their F-18's then it will be cheap. If you buy real weapons it will cost you more. Stupid clowns.

4. I am baffled by the idea that Canada buying a handful of aircraft would have a statement of requirements that would matter to anyone. Canada is not a major player. You can buy what is out there and everyone knows what is out there. Just pick one. Good grief.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 05:47
by f-22lm
Canada can just buy those J-31 what China has. Oh wait.. :?

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 05:50
by bigjku
Part 4

1. Every hard question on this program was aimed at the one guy who would waste his time with these dorks. Sprey and Wheeler get nothing but softballs.

2. I can see exactly why no one with the F-35 program would not talk to you. There was about as clear an agenda in this as one could have.

I feel endlessly dumber for having watched that whole thing. The fact that many Canadians seem to eat it up just makes me shake my head in wonder at our cousins to the North.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 05:55
by neurotech
F16VIPER wrote:I am not defending him but so shocked about the continuous abuse he receives from this online forum.
But again, as I said above I am talking about the "aparent" ineptitude, lack of honesty, ethics, concern, process, accountability
of the government not the plane. I am talking about the pressure that the US government exerted over Norway to avoid having a competition.
The whole thing is just apalling. We are talking about billions of dollars committed by a government with a prime minister that does not even know or wants to know, or does not want to reveal the cost of the programme to the Canadian taxpayer.

I can understand your concern. Do I think there should be more transparency? Yes.
Is the F-35 an expensive jet? Yes.

One of the issues with countries like Australia is that they are not in an active combat environment. Ask how many RAAF F/A-18 pilots have intercepted a hostile aircraft over Australian territory? One incident that I know of, the F/A-18s didn't even carry live missiles. The "hostile" Indonesian F-16s did however carry live missiles. Luckily, the relationship with Indonesia has improved significantly.

How many CF-18 pilots have chased a hostile jet fighter over Canadian territory?
A Tu-95 bear doesn't carry AA missiles and isn't a high threat, and can be intercepted by practically any 4th gen fighter without difficulty.

Every country has a limited budget for buying new jet fighters. I think that the F-35 is the leading jet fighter available. The F/A-18E/F is a second, and viable jet, but the F-35 is still comes out on top.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 06:00
by F16VIPER
6. The whole Norway thing just cracks me up. So the US was evil because it did not hand over technology to Sweden to sell Swedish fighters to the detriment of American jobs and the American military? Is this really evil or just common sense?

What a load of crap.

There are always two points of view or more.

It is just as you mentioned if you are a citizen of the USA, but if you are an
Australian, Canadian, Norwegian etc all you see is economic imperialism in action,
where your sovereignty is affected, process is eliminated and pressure is exerted
to go with with a US plane with a price that nobody wants to establish, preventing an
informed decission to be made. The cost of the F-35 is unknown at this point.

When Australia made the wise decision to buy the F-18F, it bought itself time and
space to assess what it needed to do in relation to the F-35. We are not in a desperate
need to buy the Lightning II, and will make the decisions when the time is right.
Defence knew the actual cost of the Super Hornet and it unusually revealed its total cost over the
operational life.

I hope our government does not stuff it up.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 06:14
by neurotech
F16VIPER wrote:It is just as you mentioned if you are a citizen of the USA, but if you are an
Australian, Canadian, Norwegian etc all you see is economic imperialism in action,
where your sovereignty is affected, process is eliminated and pressure is exerted
to go with with a US plane with a price that nobody wants to establish, preventing an
informed decission to be made. The cost of the F-35 is unknown at this point.

When Australia made the wise decision to buy the F-18F, it bought itself time and
space to assess what it needed to do in relation to the F-35. We are not in a desperate
need to buy the Lightning II, and will make the decisions when the time is right.
Defence knew the actual cost of the Super Hornet and it unusually revealed its total cost over the
operational life.

I hope our government does not stuff it up.

Canada doesn't have the budget to develop its own 5th gen aircraft. It's going to be expensive to obtain technical assistance, sufficient to build a CF-XX fighter domestically. I'm going out of a limb and saying the program cost would exceed $10bn just to finish EMD. The F-2 fighter is an example of the high cost of technical assistance and Transfer of Technology. Japan doesn't have a flying prototype stealth fighter, and neither does South Korea. Those two countries have the industrial base to create a domestic 5th gen aircraft. Could France develop a real 5th gen fighter, probably. Has it done so? No...

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 06:22
by maus92
XanderCrews wrote:
geogen wrote:
That's not the specific question here though if one is to nitpick. Currently (hypothetical FY14 buy), an F-18EF block II+ with Type IV computer, large aperture IRST Tank and a 1k FLIR G4 Litening pod eg, (with upgrade retrofit option to next-gen SE pod) would in fact likely enable superior long-range SA and long-range targeting capabilities over a stock F-35 block III and for about 1/2 the cost.



the KPMG report says that the F-35 in full production would be $88 million, according to good ol Wikipedia a 2012 F-18E/F is $66.9 million and that wouldn't include the targeting pod and IRST tank... how is that "1/2 the cost?" especially when the price of F-18s is expected to rise due to production winding down?
:?:


So were not sure what source KPMG uses to derive the FRP number, but according to the FY2013 USAF budget, the FY2017 buy of 48 F-35A aircraft (the FRP quantity) is 2012$88.9M (REC Flyaway.) According to the USN FY2013 budget, the MYP Super Hornets are 2012$54.3M (REC flyaway.) All new build Super Hornets come equipped with ATFLIR, and the most recent avionics hardware and software versions. It is unclear if IRST block 1s will be included, but the Navy is not going to equip all Super Hornets with IRST. As far as pricing goes, Super Hornet unit costs have been stable over the MYP contract. Pricing goes up in FY2014 because the MSR is not met (less than 24 aircraft are planned ATM)

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 06:24
by bigjku
It is just as you mentioned if you are a citizen of the USA, but if you are an
Australian, Canadian, Norwegian etc all you see is economic imperialism in action,
where your sovereignty is affected, process is eliminated and pressure is exerted
to go with with a US plane with a price that nobody wants to establish, preventing an
informed decission to be made. The cost of the F-35 is unknown at this point.


What do you mean a price that nobody wants to establish? You can buy each lot at the same price as everyone else essentially. If you want cheaper aircraft you wait longer. The price of almost any product changes all the time. Every lot price for every aircraft will be different. This is normal. Are you expecting someone to quote you a fixed price contract today without a firm commitment to pay? That is bonkers.

As for economic imperialism...well tough. When you basically get to live behind a US defense umbrella that keeps anything seriously bad from ever happening to Canada and allows Canada to assume the moral high ground very easily then I am not going to feel bad about my government twisting your arm a bit to spend what might (in a worst case scenario) amount to a few $10's of millions of dollars a year because it helps us afford the equipment that keeps both of our nations safe. If you think I or any other rational US taxpayer will feel bad about that then you need to re-evaluate.

I would go one step further. I find the charge of "economic imperialism" laughable and damn near insulting. If it were imperialism than the way it would work is that the vassal states would pay a proportionally greater share of the burden for the US to provide a defense umbrella for NORAD and NATO. Since last time I checked exactly no one in NATO or NORAD approaches the per capita defense expense the US takes on I would say this is less about imperialism and a hell of a lot more about asking for some well deserved burden sharing.

I have studied history. I know exactly what economic imperialism could really look like. With the Romans, the Soviets, Napoleon, Germany and even the UK at the height of its empire that starting point of negotiation was "everything you have because we can take it if we want to" so lets try to keep everything in perspective. You are not being put in that position. In fact I would honestly doubt if the US really put all that much pressure at all on Canada. They probably did what they did in Norway (which was basically not sell US technology to another nation to allow it to take jobs from US workers) at worst.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 06:39
by spazsinbad
Stroll down the page to the 'arrow-nautics' post which earlier started a discussion about this CBC idiocy 'whatever it is called' "Runaway Fighter?" doco:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... cbc#232043

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 06:48
by spazsinbad
On previous page 'F16VIPER' complained: "...I am concerned about flawed process, unknow cost etc...."

Some official Oz predictions (what else can they be?) on price:

Management of Australia’s Air Combat Capability—F-35A Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition ANAO Audit Report No.6 2012–13 | 24 Sep 2012

http://www.anao.gov.au/~/media/Files/Au ... 0OCRed.pdf (4.7Mb)

"...As at June 2012, the JSF Program Office estimated the Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost of a CTOL F-35A aircraft for Fiscal Year 2012 to be US$131.4 million. That cost includes the baseline aircraft configuration, including airframe, engine and avionics. The URF cost is estimated to reduce to US$127.3 million in 2013, and to US$83.4 million in 2019. These expected price reductions take into account economies of scale resulting from increasing production volumes, as well as the effects of inflation. The estimates indicate that, after 2019, inflation will increase the URF cost of each F-35A by about US$2 million per year. However, these estimates remain dependent upon expected orders from the United States and other nations, as well as the delivery of expected benefits of continuing Will?Cost/Should?Cost management by the US Department of Defense...."

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 07:07
by F16VIPER
bigjku, it is a good thing that we have both studied history, and I enjoy reading about economic history and
politics when I have the chance and have an interest in international affairs.

I am trying to keep focused just on the deception of the Canadian government ok?

I was referring to the way the Canadian government lied and deliberately gave false costs to the Canadians
and it is not until recently that the real costs to its taxpayer was revealed. Transparency is an absolute necesity for
democracies to remain healthy. Again, when the Australian Government bought the F-18F all costs were disclosed including the
cost over the operational life of the plane which was quite unusual.

This is normal. Are you expecting someone to quote you a fixed price contract today without a firm commitment to pay? That is bonkers.
After contract negotiations didn't Boeing offer each F-18F to the USN for $54 m a few years ago?
Obviously you have to have a need for the F-35, decide to purchase, enter contract negotiations, establish the programme cost and get
the purchase cost approved and then sign the contract for a fixed price.

Outside the USA the concern is I believe, that once the countries decided to buy the plane, current cost estimates
will be blown out of the window and not be able to afford buying as many planes as expected.
That is not an out of the ordinary concern, is it.
Also that the claims of low operational costs are just marketing claims by Tom Burbage and his team. It could very well be an expensive plane to operate and maintain.
Now is not that an unfair concern is it.

Let's see what the cost of the planes is when the Australian Government places the order and

I concurr that the USA provides an umbrella over its allies, in some cases allies do not contribute the way they should like NATO
NORAD etc, but it also comes at a cost for those nations. Some other day's topic.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 07:19
by XanderCrews
F16VIPER wrote:
I am now more convinced than ever that the whole Canadian programme is a scam
No accountability, lies, deception, half truths. What really pisses me off is when
these politicians refuse to explain the process, expenditure, long term impacts,
specially debt etc etc. Who do they think they are. They are supposed to represent the
people, not Lockheedmartin.
Do they really think that Canadians are that stupid?

Cancel the damn thing and start again.


Good to see it had the intended effect, they successfully sold you on their agenda in a film that was designed to do exactly that.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 07:33
by F16VIPER
XanderCrews
the issue under discussion is what the politicians said about the so called competition,
cost, total cost over the lifespan of the programme etc and it is crystal clear the
way they contradict themselves in the public statements. I think it is just plain deception.

I am not talking about the potential capability of the plane in the future.
Today I have no doubt there is nothing right now that approaches the capabilities the F-35 will have in the future
and that can be considered as an option to the Lightning II, but in any so called advanced economy or democracy
proper process must be followed. That is the theory anyway.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 07:37
by XanderCrews
when the Australian Government bought the F-18F all costs were disclosed including the
cost over the operational life of the plane which was quite unusual.

This is normal. Are you expecting someone to quote you a fixed price contract today without a firm commitment to pay?


What?

I concurr that the USA provides an umbrella over its allies, in some cases allies do not contribute the way they should like NATO
NORAD etc, but it also comes at a cost for those nations. Some other day's topic.


I'm an American and it costs my nation plenty. I hope everyone is enjoying their nationalized health care! Because we don't get to! no need to thank us, I mean the US spends 700 Billion a year on its military, but just because Canada would have to spend one year's worth of health care costs for Ontario to have 65 fighters for 42 years, And I am supposed to shed a tear?

The Canadian Government should have been more up front, it should have been more honest. How in the name of god's green earth is that the F-35's fault? If A canadian politician did something really wild like say lied about national health care costs, and they (surprise) turned out to be more expensive than estimated years later, would we have people fainting in the streets and demanding the whole thing be scrapped? Of course not. Suddenly they would be calm and adult, "lets not lose our heads." I would love to see Canada talk about taking new bids for alternative health care n (gotta be fair after all) And watch Canadians riot in the street at the very thought.

Lets stop acting so scandalized, and pretend that maybe Canadian politicians have lied in the past.

If the Canadians don't like the 65 aircraft at 88 million each, for 42 years at a cost of $46 billion they need to stand by, because I don't think that number is going to drastically reduce no matter what they buy. If they think that they are going to get a sweeter deal from EADs or the Rafale, They are in for a rude awakening.

VIPER it seems you really can't "lock on" to what upsets you, We know the price the KPMG report that is causing all this scandal affixes a price... Basically the only thing that little documentary seems to be honest about is that the politicians lied. But they couldn't rest there, they had to twist the knife and paint the aircraft as dog as well.

Thats Journalism. Typical headline "Still delayed and with costs mounting weapon X continues to not work" Yep, if Weapon X worked, it wouldn't be delayed, and their wouldn't be cost over runs. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 08:00
by arrow-nautics
Right or wrong it's clear, the government strategy is to stall, stall & stall this some more. This silly report to ask if a competition was warranted was a stall tactic. The government is forcing the F-35 on Canada. Stalling as you know F16VIPER is the key to winning the ol' saying: "Too early to tell, too late to stop" That's the game now.

Expect more stalling. Eventually the F-35 becomes unavoidable. That's the good ol' jet business.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 08:15
by F16VIPER
based on the comments in the media, What was unusual was the disclosure of the total cost over the operational life of the Super Hornet fleet

In December 2006, The Australian reported that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson was discussing an A$ 3 billion (about $2.36 billion) purchase of 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft to fill the fighter gap. The move came as “a surprise to senior defence officials on Russell Hill”; but quickly became an official purchase as requests and contracts were hurriedly submitted. Australia’s new Labor government’s later decided to keep the Super Hornet purchase, rather than pay cancellation fees, but added an interesting option to convert 12 into electronic warfare planes. Ministerial statements place the program’s final figure at A$ 6.6 – 7.0 billion, which includes basing, training, and other ancillary costs.

Of course the F-35 is not at fault and agree that the politicians should had been most up front and honest.
I guess right now I see again the deception and manipulation that takes place with this type of process.

I was also pissed off when the Liberal Goverment of John Howard bought the Super Hornets without competition
or disclosure, In fact this was one of the reason the newly elected Labour Government studied the possibility
of cancelling the purchase.

Look, I have not changed my mind about what I said, about starting the process again for the sake of the health of democracy, accountability, transparency and just plainly they owe it to the Canadian taxpayers. I would expect the same in my country.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 08:16
by spazsinbad
So getting info about Oz F-35A price predictions for 'F16VIPER' is just a waste of time is it? Don't bother PMing me either. No one home.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 08:30
by F16VIPER
Thanks for the information, but have not have the time to look at it properly and understand it as I am multi-tasking and getting ready for an extremely busy week at work I have ahead of me. Because of my busy life it is not very often I can exchange opinions and have a debate. No need to be so rude, but that is your choice and you can stick to it as you wish.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 08:32
by neurotech
F16VIPER wrote:Again, when the Australian Government bought the F-18F all costs were disclosed including the cost over the operational life of the plane which was quite unusual.

That is not unusual, especially for an aircraft that is already in service, and based on an earlier airframe.
F16VIPER wrote:Are you expecting someone to quote you a fixed price contract today without a firm commitment to pay? That is bonkers.

The US Navy pays according to the contract. If they order 'x' FRP/MYP jets, they get them for a certain price. If they cancel the purchase, there is usually a shutdown/cancellation fee involved, which they pay. I doubt its going to be much different for the F-35, US Navy orders the jets, US Navy pays for the jets.
F16VIPER wrote:After contract negotiations didn't Boeing offer each F-18F to the USN for $54 m a few years ago?

Actually it was $49m for an expanded MYP buy. I'm pretty sure the $49m-$54m didn't include certain "Government Furnished Equipment" such as 2xF414 engines. The flyaway cost was about $66m at the time. Peak MYP production is 42 F/A-18E/F & EA-18Gs combined per year. If the US Navy increased the annual MYP buy to 60-72 jets they could reduce the unit cost by another $5-10m but it would involve a non-recurring tooling costs.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 09:05
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote: According to the USN FY2013 budget, the MYP Super Hornets are 2012$54.3M (REC flyaway.)



neurotech wrote:Actually it was $49m for an expanded MYP buy. I'm pretty sure the $49m-$54m didn't include certain "Government Furnished Equipment" such as 2xF414 engines. The flyaway cost was about $66m at the time. Peak MYP production is 42 F/A-18E/F & EA-18Gs combined per year. If the US Navy increased the annual MYP buy to 60-72 jets they could reduce the unit cost by another $5-10m but it would involve a non-recurring tooling costs.


Help please, on price

:?:

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 09:34
by gtx
F16VIPER wrote:I was also pissed off when the Liberal Goverment of John Howard bought the Super Hornets without competition
or disclosure, In fact this was one of the reason the newly elected Labour Government studied the possibility
of cancelling the purchase.


People need to realise that sometimes competitions for platforms such as this (in either Canada or Australia or elsewhere) does not give any better situation. If you spend millions on a competition (and don't think that it won't cost millions) but then simply select the same thing where is the cost effectiveness?

Moreover, be realistic: the new Labour Govt only studied cancelling the SH acquisition because it might have offered some political point scoring...just as the Liberals would do if the positions were reversed.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 09:51
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:
maus92 wrote: According to the USN FY2013 budget, the MYP Super Hornets are 2012$54.3M (REC flyaway.)



neurotech wrote:Actually it was $49m for an expanded MYP buy. I'm pretty sure the $49m-$54m didn't include certain "Government Furnished Equipment" such as 2xF414 engines. The flyaway cost was about $66m at the time. Peak MYP production is 42 F/A-18E/F & EA-18Gs combined per year. If the US Navy increased the annual MYP buy to 60-72 jets they could reduce the unit cost by another $5-10m but it would involve a non-recurring tooling costs.


Help please, on price

:?:

I'm not precisely sure where exactly maus got those figures.
$54.3m is pretty close to the Recurring flyaway cost.
$66m is approximately the Flyaway Unit Cost. $66.907m is more exact :D

I'm not precisely sure what the exact definition, and differences between the two figures. It's in the Budget docs somewhere.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 09:52
by arrow-nautics
F16VIPER, if we do an Australian deterrent deal to purchase a bandaid solution It'd better be the Viper, and not the silly Super bug,

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 09:54
by spazsinbad
'gtx' said: "...Moreover, be realistic: the new [Oz] Labour Govt only studied cancelling the SH acquisition because it might have offered some political point scoring...just as the Liberals would do if the positions were reversed...". I agree and later the new Labor DefMin admitted as much. That is how I see Canada from afar. Two inept political parties attacking/defending and not doing a very good job. But all that is important to the Defence of Canada I'm sure.

ADDITION: The brouhaha in Canada (yep it rimes) reminds me of the 'UK to&froing' on the F-35B/C 'to B or not to B' that was the question. Where political point scoring against the previous Labor UK guvmnt (B selectors) was bruited about by their successors as incompetent; bring on the C. So two through deck cruisers were scrapped and the Harrier fleet onsold to the USMC (a good thing in circumstances for USMC) and then lo and behold a backflip to the B by the current UK guvmnt. Oh how sad it all is.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 10:05
by arrow-nautics
spazsinbad wrote:'gtx' said: "...Moreover, be realistic: the new [Oz] Labour Govt only studied cancelling the SH acquisition because it might have offered some political point scoring...just as the Liberals would do if the positions were reversed...". I agree and later the new Labor DefMin admitted as much. That is how I see Canada from afar. Two inept political parties attacking/defending and not doing a very good job. But all that is important to the Defence of Canada I'm sure.

ADDITION: The brouhaha in Canada (yep it rimes) reminds me of the 'UK to&froing' on the F-35B/C 'to B or not to B' that was the question. Where political point scoring against the previous Labor UK guvmnt (B selectors) was bruited about by their successors as incompetent; bring on the C. So two through deck cruisers were scrapped and the Harrier fleet onsold to the USMC (a good thing in circumstances for USMC) and then lo and behold a backflip to the B by the current UK guvmnt. Oh how sad it all is.


The Liberal's are more sitting on the fence-ish IMO. The NDP official opposition are clearly taking in Boeing money, lobbying & support. It's NDP Boeing versus Conservative Lockheed in Canada. Boeing is playing hardball on Parliament Hill.

It's almost like Canada's version of battle of the X-planes, X-35 versus X-32. Sigh

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 18:33
by spazsinbad
As an outsider this article/opinion/commentary seems to be reasonable...

F-35 fiasco knocks Conservative spin off its axis JEFFREY SIMPSON The Globe and Mail, Dec. 08 2012

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commenta ... cmpid=rss1

"Where to start in describing the fiasco of the F-35 fighter jet contract?

From the moment the Harper government inherited the F-35 program from the Liberal government, its handling of the file has featured photo ops, deceptions, endless political spin (of course), errors of fact, contradictions and relentlessly upward cost estimates....

...Deeper still, the F-35 fiasco reveals systemic problems with military purchasing – problems also apparent with submarines, surface ships and army trucks."

Australia has been there - done that. :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 18:52
by maus92
neurotech wrote:Actually it was $49m for an expanded MYP buy. I'm pretty sure the $49m-$54m didn't include certain "Government Furnished Equipment" such as 2xF414 engines. The flyaway cost was about $66m at the time. Peak MYP production is 42 F/A-18E/F & EA-18Gs combined per year. If the US Navy increased the annual MYP buy to 60-72 jets they could reduce the unit cost by another $5-10m but it would involve a non-recurring tooling costs.


neurotech wrote:I'm not precisely sure where exactly maus got those figures.
$54.3m is pretty close to the Recurring flyaway cost.
$66m is approximately the Flyaway Unit Cost. $66.907m is more exact :D


neurotech wrote:I'm not precisely sure what the exact definition, and differences between the two figures. It's in the Budget docs somewhere.


OK. The source is Presidents Budget FY2013 Navy. (FEB 2012)
REC Flyaway for the 26 -E/Fs budgeted for FY2013 includes these line items:

1.1.1 - Airframe / CFE (Contractor Furnished Equipment) [$33,220,346]
1.1.2 - CFE - Electronics [$7,135,962]
1.1.3 - GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) - Electronics [$2,188,268]
1.1.4 - Engines / Engine accessories (GFE) [$4,823,269 * 2]
1.1.5 - Armament (GFE) [$378,885]
1.1.6 - Other GFE [$538,000]
1.1.7 - Rec Flyaway ECO (Engineering Change Orders) [$1,253,577]

Add these up , and you get:

The (Unit) Rec Flyaway of $54,361,576.

Does this represent the true cost of fielding the aircraft? Not at all, but it is a cost used frequently in this forum to approximate the marginal cost of an aircraft. For the record, I prefer your Total Flyaway (unit) Cost of $65.3M which includes non-recurring items.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 18:53
by bigjku
After contract negotiations didn't Boeing offer each F-18F to the USN for $54 m a few years ago?
Obviously you have to have a need for the F-35, decide to purchase, enter contract negotiations, establish the programme cost and get
the purchase cost approved and then sign the contract for a fixed price.


And if Canada were to commit to buying F-35's today they could get a price quoted. Canada wants to wait to buy until cost are lower and production volume is higher. When it reaches that point they can and will quote you a cost. You acted as if no one would give you a cost. That is not true. If I went to LM today and said I want to buy 20 fighters in the next batch open they would quote me a price. I might or might not like it but a price would be quoted.

Outside the USA the concern is I believe, that once the countries decided to buy the plane, current cost estimates
will be blown out of the window and not be able to afford buying as many planes as expected.
That is not an out of the ordinary concern, is it.
Also that the claims of low operational costs are just marketing claims by Tom Burbage and his team. It could very well be an expensive plane to operate and maintain.
Now is not that an unfair concern is it.


This is where the rubber meets the road so to speak. What exactly are we comparing for operational cost? Just the flat cost to put a plane in the air for an hour? The cost to get a certain mission accomplished? If it is the former than the F-35 has no chance to win. It is carrying a bunch of equipment that is "optional" (but really not if you want to get something done) and hangs on the pylons of all its competitors. So before we move forward lets establish exactly what we are comparing here when it comes to operational cost. This is why I think it is fair to view the F-35 decisions made by various nations as a litmus test on their overall commitment to being strategic partners. I am fine if you don't buy it but I would expect the Canadian contribution to be something like Gripen and several hundred long-range strike weapons so they can contribute. Or Gripen and AWACS. Or Gripen and jammers. Or Gripen and a major tanker capability.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 19:11
by SpudmanWP
These cost & commitment fluctuations were one of the unintentional but completely foreseeable (and predicted) effects of backing away from the concurrency commitment in the program. DoD/Congress's constant & yearly reduction in LRIP numbers done in a short-sighted attempt to control short-term costs is driving up the cost of all partner buys due to them ordering in the late LRIP / early MYB cycle.

A crumbling economy didn't help either ;)

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 20:58
by neurotech
SpudmanWP wrote:These cost & commitment fluctuations were one of the unintentional but completely foreseeable (and predicted) effects of backing away from the concurrency commitment in the program. DoD/Congress's constant & yearly reduction in LRIP numbers done in a short-sighted attempt to control short-term costs is driving up the cost of all partner buys due to them ordering in the late LRIP / early MYB cycle.

A crumbling economy didn't help either ;)

That is the part I don't understand. If JPO/OSD/GAO/CBO/OMB were intelligent about this, they'd analyze based on supply chain risk (eg. part becomes superceeded by late changes ) and lead-times, and costs per "step" and order enough components to stabilize the supply chain, even if they only deliver X aircraft per year during LRIP development. Of course, somebody would scream over the procurement costs of keeping a full supply chain during LRIP phase.

Guess what happened to all the old components (APG-73 Radar and Mission Computer mainly..) in F/A-18E/F Block I jets when they were replaced in a later upgrade? They went into F/A-18A+/B+/C/D jets. The costs involved in the F/A-18E/F upgrades were minimal when offset by reduced upgrade costs of earlier jets.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 21:32
by aceshigh
This is where the rubber meets the road so to speak. What exactly are we comparing for operational cost? Just the flat cost to put a plane in the air for an hour? The cost to get a certain mission accomplished? If it is the former than the F-35 has no chance to win. It is carrying a bunch of equipment that is "optional" (but really not if you want to get something done) and hangs on the pylons of all its competitors


And this is how Norway found out that the F-35 was the cheapest and best aircraft in the end. You cannot go to war in airshow configuration.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 21:37
by neurotech
aceshigh wrote:And this is how Norway found out that the F-35 was the cheapest and best aircraft in the end. You cannot go to war in airshow configuration.

I thought Carlo Kopp went to war in a Airshow configured F-111 :D The F/A-18F was also in Airshow configuration.. although except for detecting "hostile" ground radar it didn't see combat. The radar source was later identified as belonging to highway patrol.

Unread postPosted: 09 Dec 2012, 22:24
by gtx
Nah! CK wanted to go to war in an F-111 armed to the teeth with AIM-120s guided by a B-1B radar...against a non-existent threat :lmao:

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2012, 14:10
by 1st503rdsgt
Canada Reconsiders JSF; Italy’s Leading PM Candidate Would Trim F-35 Buy

WASHINGTON, OTTAWA and ROME — The prospect that Canada may drop the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) entirely and Italy would trim its planned buy of the stealthy jet as Washington think-tanks urge the Pentagon to cut the program is raising concern that the world’s largest and most expensive defense program could be destabilized.

Dismissing news reports that they had canceled a planned purchase of 65 F-35s, Canadian officials did say they were reconsidering the program and may compete the contract to replace the country’s aging CF-18 fighters.

Boeing has long lobbied Canada to ditch the JSF in favor of its F/A-18 Super Hornet, while Eurofighter, Dassault and Saab have been eager for what would be a major order for new combat jets. The JSF would bid as well.

The potential cancellation of the Canadian JSF program comes as the man many expect to be the next prime minister of Italy indicated his government would evaluate whether to make cuts to the program.

“I would consider a relaxing, a reduction of the commitment to the F-35 and military spending,” Pier Luigi Bersani, the head of the center-left Democratic Party, said to Italian TV

Meanwhile, as Washington debates its fiscal future, the biggest acquisition program on the Pentagon’s books is attracting attention as defense analysts and even a number of influential think tanks — including the Stimson Center, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) and Center for American Progress — have suggested a range of ways to scale back the program that depends on volume to keep unit prices down.

For their part, Pentagon leaders are remaining firm on JSF orders, explaining they can afford to make cuts far in the future to keep near- and mid-term production volume up.

But that’s not the case abroad, where fiscal challenges are even more acute...



Costs per fighter have dropped steadily in each block of jets purchased by the U.S. On Nov. 29, DoD and Lockheed reached an agreement on the fifth block of JSFs, composed of 22 F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing variants used by the Air Force; three F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variants for the Marines; and seven F-35C carrier variants requested by the Navy. The total cost was just short of $4 billion, less than half of what the initial block 1 order cost taxpayers.

The most recent selected acquisition report from the Pentagon estimates a unit recurring flyaway cost — the average cost for each aircraft over the life of the program — of $78.7 million per F-35A variant, $87 million per F-35C variant and $106.4 million per F-35B, all in 2012 dollars. Lockheed estimates the cost for the A variant at about $70 million.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... |FRONTPAGE

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2012, 14:57
by gtx
I often wonder what the world might be like without the economic mess that most of it is in...remember all that stuff that is NOT the fault of the F-35 but for which it apparently must bear the burden of.

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2012, 15:51
by geogen
XanderCrews wrote:
geogen wrote:
That's not the specific question here though if one is to nitpick. Currently (hypothetical FY14 buy), an F-18EF block II+ with Type IV computer, large aperture IRST Tank and a 1k FLIR G4 Litening pod eg, (with upgrade retrofit option to next-gen SE pod) would in fact likely enable superior long-range SA and long-range targeting capabilities over a stock F-35 block III and for about 1/2 the cost.



the KPMG report says that the F-35 in full production would be $88 million, according to good ol Wikipedia a 2012 F-18E/F is $66.9 million and that wouldn't include the targeting pod and IRST tank... how is that "1/2 the cost?" especially when the price of F-18s is expected to rise due to production winding down?
:?:


Regarding the Super's 1/2 cost comparison, that 'half-cost' figure would be for an approx estimated FY14 unit WSC cost, which is the relevant PROCUREMENT cost. That is, the cost that Country X,Y,Z will need to actually spend part of their respective annual Procurement budget on to acquire and Field the aircraft. Remember, it's the total cost to PROCURE an aircraft and not just the cost to simple PRODUCE an airframe which is the issue here and which some still seem to base flawed comparisons on.

Add the necessary 'Initial Spare Parts' onto that unit procurement cost for good measure, which currently comes in at around $2-3 million or so per Super and at least double that for F-35, and hopefully you get the picture.

As far as any hypothetical FY17 or FY18 F-35A buy, it's simply too far off into the future and way to speculative to make any sort of assumption with respect to currently advertised Procurement costs. And there's just no effective evidence that one can assume the currently estimated Total aircraft annual rates to be ordered by then either, along with the estimated Weapon system costs being assumed here.

There's simply no track record and especially no track record for how expensive an actual next-gen Block IV F-35 will cost, which will be the actual variant required by most partner Air Forces and needing additional expensive retrofit to the initial block III acquisitions.

Regarding how good the 'next-gen' F-18EF block II+/++ will be in the aggregate scope of avionics (eg, with superior large aperture IRST sensor and superior next-gen 1k FLIR Litening pod (and possible SNIPER SE) sensor and overall capabilities in comparison to an eventually mature block III F-35A and future block IV F-35A... it's a fair question.

The answer however, and perhaps the most relevant answer is that, just maybe the more Prudent Defense related interest of any Air Force is to acquire a mix of 'Good enough' platforms to meet requirements as part of a cost-effective recapitalization strategy. In the case of RCAF, that 'good enough' could absolutely include other possible alternative platforms (either leased as part of an interim strategy, or bought outright) eg, next-gen Super Hornet, Euro Fighter, Rafale, Gripen NG, F-16V(?) and even a next-gen F-15E+ model for that matter (ie, if one was requiring a higher-end, more capable equivalent in capabilities to the F-35).

Hence the sound and prudent 'Options Analysis' process underway in Canada. God speed.

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2012, 17:34
by spazsinbad
'geogen' what happens to your grand plans when the F-35A is again selected by Canada? Do you put your phrases away after drycleaning them and putting them in mothballs?

Unread postPosted: 10 Dec 2012, 17:57
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
geogen wrote:
That's not the specific question here though if one is to nitpick. Currently (hypothetical FY14 buy), an F-18EF block II+ with Type IV computer, large aperture IRST Tank and a 1k FLIR G4 Litening pod eg, (with upgrade retrofit option to next-gen SE pod) would in fact likely enable superior long-range SA and long-range targeting capabilities over a stock F-35 block III and for about 1/2 the cost.



the KPMG report says that the F-35 in full production would be $88 million, according to good ol Wikipedia a 2012 F-18E/F is $66.9 million and that wouldn't include the targeting pod and IRST tank... how is that "1/2 the cost?" especially when the price of F-18s is expected to rise due to production winding down?
:?:


Regarding the Super's 1/2 cost comparison, that 'half-cost' figure would be for an approx estimated FY14 unit WSC cost, which is the relevant PROCUREMENT cost. That is, the cost that Country X,Y,Z will need to actually spend part of their respective annual Procurement budget on to acquire and Field the aircraft. Remember, it's the total cost to PROCURE an aircraft and not just the cost to simple PRODUCE an airframe which is the issue here and which some still seem to base flawed comparisons on.

Add the necessary 'Initial Spare Parts' onto that unit procurement cost for good measure, which currently comes in at around $2-3 million or so per Super and at least double that for F-35, and hopefully you get the picture.

As far as any hypothetical FY17 or FY18 F-35A buy, it's simply too far off into the future and way to speculative to make any sort of assumption with respect to currently advertised Procurement costs. And there's just no effective evidence that one can assume the currently estimated Total aircraft annual rates to be ordered by then either, along with the estimated Weapon system costs being assumed here.

There's simply no track record and especially no track record for how expensive an actual next-gen Block IV F-35 will cost, which will be the actual variant required by most partner Air Forces and needing additional expensive retrofit to the initial block III acquisitions.

Regarding how good the 'next-gen' F-18EF block II+/++ will be in the aggregate scope of avionics (eg, with superior large aperture IRST sensor and superior next-gen 1k FLIR Litening pod (and possible SNIPER SE) sensor and overall capabilities in comparison to an eventually mature block III F-35A and future block IV F-35A... it's a fair question.

The answer however, and perhaps the most relevant answer is that, just maybe the more Prudent Defense related interest of any Air Force is to acquire a mix of 'Good enough' platforms to meet requirements as part of a cost-effective recapitalization strategy. In the case of RCAF, that 'good enough' could absolutely include other possible alternative platforms (either leased as part of an interim strategy, or bought outright) eg, next-gen Super Hornet, Euro Fighter, Rafale, Gripen NG, F-16V(?) and even a next-gen F-15E+ model for that matter (ie, if one was requiring a higher-end, more capable equivalent in capabilities to the F-35).

Hence the sound and prudent 'Options Analysis' process underway in Canada. God speed.


Its ok man, math is hard. Don't listen to what everyone is saying regarding numbers or anything; just claim "half," (what do Maus92 and Neurotech know?) and then kinda sputter about how "good enough" is ok even if the numbers don't add up. :roll: by even playing the "good enough card" you concede that the F-35 is the superior choice, but maybe you just don't feel like spending that kind of money, so you buy something else and just say it works.

geogen wrote:Add the necessary 'Initial Spare Parts' onto that unit procurement cost for good measure, which currently comes in at around $2-3 million or so per Super and at least double that for F-35, and hopefully you get the picture.



I do not get the picture, would you mind breaking it all down for me? Maus92 and Neurotech were even able to give me line by line accounting (thank you both)

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2012, 01:47
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:I do not get the picture, would you mind breaking it all down for me? Maus92 and Neurotech were even able to give me line by line accounting (thank you both)

I think some people are mixing LRIP Unit Flyaway Cost of a F-35 with the FRP cost of a F/A-18E/F.

The Unit Flyaway Cost of a FY2004 Raptor was $154m in the FY2004 budget
The projected Unit Flyaway Cost of a FY2008 Raptor was only $109m in FY2004 budget.
The Unit Flyaway Cost of a FY2008 Raptor was $137m in the FY2008 budget.

If they'd extended production to say 300 aircraft, it wouldn't have cost much more than it ended up costing to get 187 jets. Does anyone see a pattern here? The F-35 might not be cheap, but the FRP unit cost wont be double the cost of a F/A-18E/F

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2012, 02:49
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I do not get the picture, would you mind breaking it all down for me? Maus92 and Neurotech were even able to give me line by line accounting (thank you both)

I think some people are mixing LRIP Unit Flyaway Cost of a F-35 with the FRP cost of a F/A-18E/F.

The Unit Flyaway Cost of a FY2004 Raptor was $154m in the FY2004 budget
The projected Unit Flyaway Cost of a FY2008 Raptor was only $109m in FY2004 budget.
The Unit Flyaway Cost of a FY2008 Raptor was $137m in the FY2008 budget.

If they'd extended production to say 300 aircraft, it wouldn't have cost much more than it ended up costing to get 187 jets. Does anyone see a pattern here? The F-35 might not be cheap, but the FRP unit cost wont be double the cost of a F/A-18E/F


Thanks again

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2012, 04:01
by arrow-nautics
Part of the problem for Canada is from 2006 up until May 2011 we had a minority government. The Conservatives were in power with the left wing & center leaning parties making up the combined majority. In those 5 years there was never any non-partisan movement or discussion on replacing our jet fleet. Talk mostly centered around socialist spending & pleasing the opposition so the Conservatives could survive. In short, 5 years was wasted on this file.

Now (since the program is abored by most) if the opposition says the F-35 has price or tech issues, people follow the Pied Piper without question. Just look at this article, put on your hats of jet knowledge & find me one sentence where anything remotely factual is stated:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... efits.html

If our opposition is so brilliant & the detractors can come up with accurate 40 year cost over run calculations, I'd like to ask them why they didn't buy up Apple stock in 2004 when it was worthless?

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2012, 04:17
by XanderCrews
arrow-nautics wrote:If our opposition is so brilliant & the detractors can come up with accurate 40 year cost over run calculations, I'd like to ask them why they didn't buy up Apple stock in 2004 when it was worthless?


I can't wait to see what happens when Canadians find out all the other options for about 40 years will cost at or above the F-35. :cry: And they won't be giving you anywhere near 9 billion in incentives

Remember Canada, the cheapest air force is no air force at all.

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2012, 16:29
by geogen
Neurotech,

Your point about F-22's winding up being more expensive than originally estimated (advertised) is exactly the point vis-a-vis underestimated F-35 estimates, flawed assumptions on complex next-gen fighter projects and miscalculating forward looking schedules.

And if F-22 had continued being produced at the current annual rates at it's height, the Unit Weapon System Costs would actually likely INCREASE year over year, after leveling off and especially increase most likely, as Incremental upgrades were brought into the Production cycle. For example, an FY10 procurement of say 20 units would have probably cost around $182m or so, pre-retrofits, and FY11 Procurement would have probably come in around $185m, etc. (pre-retrofit). These WSC costs towards the end of Procurement were much higher than originally expected and estimated regardless of whether or not the F-22 was a justified Procurement to have been continued. Exactly the point.

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2012, 16:34
by geogen
F414/euro, 'breaking down the picture' as you request can be done on your own research using basic links as basis which you should already be aware of in making such discussion.

A couple of commonly cited references eg, are:

http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/13pr ... 4_BOOK.pdf
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media ... 10-115.pdf

You can start there and break down Unit WSC costs for example, between F-35 A/B/C and F-18EF in the said budget activity/procurement estimate documents. FY14 eg will likely see 1/2 cost F-18EF WSC vs FY14 F-35A. Don't even bother trying to compare with F-35B. FY15 will likely not look too much different also, especially once Procurement revisions are updated. The uncertainty and risk there is substantial and should not be ignored.

With respect to Canada's previously required timeframe, RCAF was expecting to begin procurement around FY15 which is yes, LRIP F-35 aircraft Procurement! NOT FRP!

And what will eventual FRP cost estimates and schedules (and the ultimately refined definition of FRP) look like anyhow? Fair questions, but unfortunately there's no evidence to suggest that past or previous estimates for future looking F-35 Procurement has been or will be accurate (refer also to above underestimated forward-looking F-22 estimate discussion). Flat out, future schedules will likely continue to be refined and restructured and downsized, especially for USAF orders, as budgets come into line with the developing austere budget environment.

But regardless, RCAF will likely be requiring a significant buy of LRIP F-35 jets (at least in the initial lots Procured), with those themselves needing to be retrofitted to mature Block III standard and then further to the Block IV standard as was originally required! That and uncertain costs of additional CF-18 SLEP requirement and systems upgrades for those jets to remain credible and modern as part of the stopgap.

It's basically a highly complex 3 dimensional moving chess game, trying to be figured out seemingly with 1-dimensional eyesight in staying the course.

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2012, 17:52
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:Neurotech,

Your point about F-22's winding up being more expensive than originally estimated (advertised) is exactly the point vis-a-vis underestimated F-35 estimates, flawed assumptions on complex next-gen fighter projects and miscalculating forward looking schedules.

And if F-22 had continued being produced at the current annual rates at it's height, the Unit Weapon System Costs would actually likely INCREASE year over year, after leveling off and especially increase most likely, as Incremental upgrades were brought into the Production cycle. For example, an FY10 procurement of say 20 units would have probably cost around $182m or so, pre-retrofits, and FY11 Procurement would have probably come in around $185m, etc. (pre-retrofit). These WSC costs towards the end of Procurement were much higher than originally expected and estimated regardless of whether or not the F-22 was a justified Procurement to have been continued. Exactly the point.


That's some very shoddy analysis. The F-22 was a very different case, because of its haphazard nature. The aircraft was undergoing significant design changes during its full rate production period, particularly with its avionics fit (ie the most costly part of the design). Between 1999 and 2008, you saw about five different plans emerge concerning the avionics architecture, some implemented, some not. This is why there are several different increments of the fighter. Consequently learning curve behavior was frequently disrupted. Moreover the low production numbers prevented economies of scale from being applied, which further increased production costs.

None of that is the case with the F-35. First, the AF has stuck with the block approach (only moving around when it would implement some capabilities, but never canceling them). Moreover the architecture itself has basically remained the same; reflecting the F/A-18E/F experience.

The other major difference is the vast size of the production scale. in each year after 2019, LM in one year will produce more of F-35s than in six years of F-22 production. In three years, they will produce more than 15 years of F/A-18E/F production. That's unheard of production scales since the early 1980s with the F-16. It allows for very large economies of scale to be developed, and major learning curves to be applied.You're likely to see the aircraft go the a MYP scheme, which should further decrease the costs.

Really they are very, very different programs.

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2012, 18:47
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:F414/euro, 'breaking down the picture' as you request can be done on your own research using basic links as basis which you should already be aware of in making such discussion.

A couple of commonly cited references eg, are:

http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/13pr ... 4_BOOK.pdf
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media ... 10-115.pdf

You can start there and break down Unit WSC costs for example, between F-35 A/B/C and F-18EF in the said budget activity/procurement estimate documents. FY14 eg will likely see 1/2 cost F-18EF WSC vs FY14 F-35A. Don't even bother trying to compare with F-35B. FY15 will likely not look too much different also, especially once Procurement revisions are updated. The uncertainty and risk there is substantial and should not be ignored.


Our procurement costs would be extremely high compared to the normal F/A-18 numbers. In order to operate an F/A-18E fleet Canada would need to make an extremely large purchase of initial spares. Thats for three reasons:

#1: You need a base of spares to start operations with, and it would be a completely new type of aircraft.
#2: F/A-18E production is ending, meaning that Canada would need to buy spares for the entire life of the aircraft because it cannot rely on parts producers after 2017.
#3 The number of F/A-18 users are actually very low; meaning there are fewer spares out there. Moreover the Americans are probably going to squeeze every last hour out of their fleet, meaning they wouldn't be willing to sell their aircraft.

F-35's initial spares buy would be much smaller.

#1 The aircraft is at the beginning of its production life, meaning producers are expected to be around for the next 20+ years.
#2 The global supply chain (with just in time delivery) allows Canada to avoid the need for a large parts base. IF a part is needed its ordered through the OEM and then delivered,.
#3 Buying later offers greater choice in parts, allowing for better prices and performance.
#4. There are 10X the number of F-35s, meaning many more parts will be available on the market.

While uncertainty and risk exists with the F-35, I think that refrain is starting to loose it relevance. The volatility of operational costs decreases substantially when you start producing more aircraft... something that the F-22 never did. The F/A-18E/F was low risk partly because it shared high levels of commonality with the legacy hornet, so the production and operational knowledge was already present. Certainly early on in the F-35's history that wasn't there... which is why you saw substantial increases in its costs.

However since the 2010 TBR, that has changed. There is a much stronger foundation of knowledge about the fighter and its capabilities. Most of the aircraft hardware components have been designed, manufactured and either on the aircraft or completing testing on the flying testbeds. Those matter.

This is the fundamental difference between the F-35 and other programs, production scale. With 3000+ aircraft currently on the books the DoD can make such predictions with confidence.


One other point, you seem to ignore. All those capabilities that you and Maus like to cite that gives the Super Hornet F-35 like capabilities do affect its O&M's cost. There are no free lunches, particularly in avionics. Given current F-16 O&M being about 22,000 CPFH as lightweight single with huge fleet size and a significantly less developed Avionics suite, I can't see how the F/A-18E would be any less than the F-35 (at a projected CPFH of 31,000). Really its much more realistically the Super Hornet is either closer or exceeds that of the F-35 by the time the latter enters service.

geogen wrote:With respect to Canada's previously required timeframe, RCAF was expecting to begin procurement around FY15 which is yes, LRIP F-35 aircraft Procurement! NOT FRP!

And what will eventual FRP cost estimates and schedules (and the ultimately refined definition of FRP) look like anyhow? Fair questions, but unfortunately there's no evidence to suggest that past or previous estimates for future looking F-35 Procurement has been or will be accurate (refer also to above underestimated forward-looking F-22 estimate discussion). Flat out, future schedules will likely continue to be refined and restructured and downsized, especially for USAF orders, as budgets come into line with the developing austere budget environment.


Yes, those budgets have already come into line significantly. Its pretty apparent that the military brass has prioritized (both in statements and actions) the F-35 over almost every single other program currently under development. The USAF has again just last week restated its commitment to buy 1763 aircraft. Furthermore there is every likelihood that they might buy more F-35s, or maybe the navy will because they feel that the aircraft is superior to the current F/A-18E fleet. What we do know is that the USAF and USN desperately require a major recapitalization effort, and there is only one fighter that they want.

Moreover the US won't be in austerity forever. Given that we're looking at FRP after 2017, its quite likely that much of the current effort debt reduction efforts will have taken force by then. I believe that BCA 2011 sequestration ends at 2018, so the program was always minimally affected by these budget cuts.

If the US will make cuts, they are much more likely to happen at the tail end; after 2025 considering the desperate need for recapitalization. However by that time, you're already looking at a total fleet size of over 1500 aircraft in the US alone, beyond what is needed to accrue the benefits of a large production run.

geogen wrote:But regardless, RCAF will likely be requiring a significant buy of LRIP F-35 jets (at least in the initial lots Procured), with those themselves needing to be retrofitted to mature Block III standard and then further to the Block IV standard as was originally required! That and uncertain costs of additional CF-18 SLEP requirement and systems upgrades for those jets to remain credible and modern as part of the stopgap.



We won't be making a significant buy of LRIP jets. Its been stated that we might get one to five at the very end of the LRIP lots. The vast bulk (55~60 would come after 2019).

geogen wrote:It's basically a highly complex 3 dimensional moving chess game, trying to be figured out seemingly with 1-dimensional eyesight in staying the course.



How many aerospace programs have you priced out or managed Geogen in an official capacity? Yet you have the complete and utter arrogance to come here and say that you know better than the people working at the Department of National Defence who have done this for most of their careers and have all the information in front of them? Maybe it shouldn't have come as a surprise that KPMG actually validated DND's accounting, but extended it out to 40 years.

Seriously, you're delusional. Then again, all you've ever come here with is this single minded bias to trumpet Super Hornet and Super Eagle ignoring all evidence that the opposite might actually be better. Go keep posting on Ares, it seems like a better fit for you.

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2012, 19:11
by maus92
The differing program's cost if all planned aircraft are built (except for F-22 whose production is complete.)
If unplanned modifications become necessary, the WSC most likely goes up.

Estimated Total (Unit) WSC as of Feb 2012 (all in 2012 dollars.)

F/A-18E/F: 565 units: $78,275,062
F-22A: 179 units: $181,156,000
F-35A: 1,763 units: $120,401,000
F-35B: 290 units: $160,131,403
F-35C: 321 units: $161,786,150

These are estimates based on assumptions valid at the time the budgets were prepared.

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2012, 23:05
by XanderCrews
geogen Have we tried looking at this from another angle?

Like taking how much your FY14 F-18F with all the bells and whistles you include will cost and then multiplying that by 2 to see how much an F-35 has to cost in order to make your "half as much" claim true?

For example if it is 70 million X 2 would mean the F-35A would have to cost 140 million? thus 1/2 of 140 =70

I'm not a mathematician but your "1/2" claim seems wrong. Even before Maus and hb gave their numbers (thanks again Maus and hb_pencil) even an aviation outsider may have a hard time believing that 70 million is half of 88 million. If you don't feel like helping me line by line, maybe you can at least take me through your math?

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2012, 23:25
by SpudmanWP
Don't forget the added support, ISR, IFR, escort & its IFR, decoy, jamming, etc that is required for the F-18 to do the same job as an F-35.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 00:07
by maus92
SpudmanWP wrote:Don't forget the added support, ISR, IFR, escort & its IFR, decoy, jamming, etc that is required for the F-18 to do the same job as an F-35.


That is a justification that I'd like to see quantified by a reputable research organization - not by the manufacturer, or its surrogates.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 00:25
by count_to_10
maus92 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Don't forget the added support, ISR, IFR, escort & its IFR, decoy, jamming, etc that is required for the F-18 to do the same job as an F-35.


That is a justification that I'd like to see quantified by a reputable research organization - not by the manufacturer, or its surrogates.

You mean besides the US government?
Who has the classified data?

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 00:36
by maus92
count_to_10 wrote:
maus92 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Don't forget the added support, ISR, IFR, escort & its IFR, decoy, jamming, etc that is required for the F-18 to do the same job as an F-35.


That is a justification that I'd like to see quantified by a reputable research organization - not by the manufacturer, or its surrogates.

You mean besides the US government?
Who has the classified data?


The data that would reflect such "savings" would show up as reduced development / procurement / retirement of support aircraft - which we are not seeing. What I see are new tankers, new ISR platforms, new patrol aircraft, new long range bombers, new jamming aircraft, new jamming systems, new cruise missiles, etc. - all which will still be required. What we are buying less of than planned are the F-35s themselves - not because they are more capable - but because they are more expensive.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 00:45
by SpudmanWP
Do you mean like this from the Canadian Chief of the Air Staff's office?

Image

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 01:04
by popcorn
Deleted

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 01:12
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:Do you mean like this from the Canadian Chief of the Air Staff's office?

Image


Waste of time Spud... I think defense professionals who come up with such scenarios fall under Maus' "surrogates" label.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 01:42
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:That is a justification that I'd like to see quantified by a reputable research organization - not by the manufacturer, or its surrogates.


I'm pretty sure at this point, and with the release of the KPMG report that save for the classified information the F-35 is falling more and more into a "Cassandra Truth" territory. The data is out there, the KPMG report tells Canada exactly what it will cost. we learn more and more about the F-35 everyday. Everyone is shouting the truth, and people simply choose not to hear or don't believe it. The proponents of the F-35 have not exactly been quiet in their praises. :roll:

maus92 wrote: What I see are new tankers, new ISR platforms, new patrol aircraft, new long range bombers, new jamming aircraft, new jamming systems, new cruise missiles, etc. - all which will still be required. What we are buying less of than planned are the F-35s themselves - not because they are more capable - but because they are more expensive.


Whoa, who pissed Canada off? They are getting all that?

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 02:12
by neurotech
popcorn wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Do you mean like this from the Canadian Chief of the Air Staff's office?

Waste of time Spud... I think defense professionals who come up with such scenarios fall under Maus' "surrogates" label.

Are you really suggesting that 5th gen LO aircraft can be detected just as easily as a 4th gen fighter?

Flying in between SAM sites has been done since Vietnam, but larger detection range makes it easier to have SAM sites form a barrier to incoming aircraft. It's very difficult to detect a F-22 or F-35 at BVR ranges on radar.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 02:42
by arrow-nautics
Now prepare yourself for the stupid of all stupids. It's HIGHLY likely the opposition party NDP are lobbying for Boeing whereas they insist on having a 2 engine aircraft for the Arctic North. I highly doubt they are trumpeting the Typhoon due to its expenditure but who knows. Having said that, with a Conservative pro-F-35 government versus Boeing's NDP I HIGHLY doubt there is any chance of a deferral deal like the Aussies. Not that I want the Super Hornet, but as a buffer I could stomach it. Good luck with that now. What would be the point of buying 40 Lightning II or 40 Typhoons after a buffer deal is reached? This "this or that" mentality due to partisanship kills any buffer deal so as to create the situation of a full FA-18E purchase as the entire fleet. Also the political wrangling will delay a commitment to a full Lightning II or Typhoon deal thus causing the cost to go up no matter what we choose. Canada CAN'T win! I can see this coming miles away.

:bang: :bang: :bang:

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 03:10
by neurotech
arrow-nautics wrote:Now prepare yourself for the stupid of all stupids. It's HIGHLY likely the opposition party NDP are lobbying for Boeing whereas they insist on having a 2 engine aircraft for the Arctic North. I highly doubt they are trumpeting the Typhoon due to its expenditure but who knows. Having said that, with a Conservative pro-F-35 government versus Boeing's NDP I HIGHLY doubt there is any chance of a deferral deal like the Aussies. Not that I want the Super Hornet, but as a buffer I could stomach it. Good luck with that now. What would be the point of buying 40 Lightning II or 40 Typhoons after a buffer deal is reached? This "this or that" mentality due to partisanship kills any buffer deal so as to create the situation of a full FA-18E purchase as the entire fleet. Also the political wrangling will delay a commitment to a full Lightning II or Typhoon deal thus causing the cost to go up no matter what we choose. Canada CAN'T win! I can see this coming miles away.

:bang: :bang: :bang:

The idea of buying "stop-gap" F/A-18Fs is possible, but partisan politics could easily kill that. I don't believe that engine related issues are significant enough in either the F-16C 50/52 or F-35 to warrant mandating F/A-18Fs for northern patrol.

I hate partisan politics, I really do. A compromise of F/A-18Fs and F-35s would be smarter. Claiming that the aircraft wont be supportable after the US Navy stops flying them is rubbish. Ask Lockheed how many F-16 Block 15 jets they still support? Boeing still support & make A/B model parts for the USMC F/A-18A+/B+ jets.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 03:12
by hb_pencil
Why do we need a "stop gap" at all?

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 03:22
by SpudmanWP
neurotech wrote:
popcorn wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Do you mean like this from the Canadian Chief of the Air Staff's office?

Waste of time Spud... I think defense professionals who come up with such scenarios fall under Maus' "surrogates" label.

Are you really suggesting that 5th gen LO aircraft can be detected just as easily as a 4th gen fighter?
You're confused due to the lack of [sarcasm] flags [/sarcasm] :)

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 03:49
by madrat
There are plenty of Typhoon that could be rented for cheaper than buying either F-35 or F/A-18F. Boeing might steer them to Eurofighter considering the mission they do. They should be more careful how they lobby to kill off F-35.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 04:38
by neurotech
madrat wrote:There are plenty of Typhoon that could be rented for cheaper than buying either F-35 or F/A-18F. Boeing might steer them to Eurofighter considering the mission they do. They should be more careful how they lobby to kill off F-35.

If Boeing were serious, they'd get a few extra F/A-18Fs and let the Canadians borrow them for a few weeks. I think Boeing have room in FY2013 production for a few extra jets.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 09:45
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:
neurotech wrote:
popcorn wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Do you mean like this from the Canadian Chief of the Air Staff's office?

Waste of time Spud... I think defense professionals who come up with such scenarios fall under Maus' "surrogates" label.

Are you really suggesting that 5th gen LO aircraft can be detected just as easily as a 4th gen fighter?
You're confused due to the lack of [sarcasm] flags [/sarcasm] :)

Bingo on the smileys (or lack thereof)..
The lessons,learned from the Package Q experience over Baghdad illustrate that the old way of doing business isn't smart.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 13:17
by USMilFan
maus92 wrote:That is a justification that I'd like to see quantified by a reputable research organization - not by the manufacturer, or its surrogates.


maus92, I’m inferring from the above that, as one who hasn’t seen a quantified justification, you are not a program insider working within DOD. Nonetheless, you seem to be a highly intelligent and reasonable person. Please allow me to ask: if you were the SecDef, wouldn’t you still like to see a quantified justification? Which is more plausible – that both current and former SecDef’s are not interested in seeing a quantified justification, or that they are/were interested? Is it more plausible to assume that DOD is not interested in such justification, or that it is indeed interested? What say you?

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 15:48
by m
madrat wrote:There are plenty of Typhoon that could be rented for cheaper than buying either F-35 or F/A-18F. Boeing might steer them to Eurofighter considering the mission they do. They should be more careful how they lobby to kill off F-35.


Doubt it Canada will drop the F35
Leasing jets either is not that really cheap

Hungary: Leasing Gripens C/D another ten years

Quote: The total value of the lease for 14 Gripen fighter planes is 340 billion forints (EUR 1.09bn) and of the training of pilots another 58 billion (EUR 187m), of which the defence ministry is to pay per year 30 billion and 2 billion, respectively, the paper said.
http://www.politics.hu/20111230/hungary ... ith-sweden

Quote: The government of Sweden approved and ratified a ten-year extension of Hungary’s lease of Gripen fighter aircraft last week. Swedish Defence and Security Export Agency (FXM) declined to reveal further details of the modified contract other than the ten-year extension. Apparently, the limit of flight-hours was increased by 95%, reaching 32,000 hours in total. The leasing cost for the next 10 years will increase by around 45%.
http://defense-update.com/20120201_swed ... lease.html



Second hand Typhoons
Offer to the Swiss, second hand German Trance 1 Typhoons (2003) roughly: $100 million per Typhoon

Typhoon- Flying cost per hour:
Germany (2009) - Flying cost per hour: €73,992 (±$96,000)
(Die Kosten (Betriebskosten und kalkulatorische Kosten) der Flugstunden für Luftfahrzeuge der Bundeswehr werden jährlich im Ministerialblatt des Bundesministeriums der Verteidigung veröffentlicht)

UK (2010/2011) - Flying cost per hour : £70,000 ($113,000)
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id ... -25a.365.0

Costs of UK’s colonial war in Libya spiral
Tusa’s figures make clear that this is a significant underestimate. According to his figures it costs £2.5 million ($4.04 million) per day to run a single Eurofighter Typhoon fighter-bomber. The UK is operating ten Typhoons from a base in southern Italy. Paveway IV bombs cost £50,000 per mission.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct20 ... -o07.shtml

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 18:03
by gtx
Looking at Canada from an overall industrial/jobs point of view (which is arguably what the Governments are really interested in - after all jobs mean happy voters which equals happy politicians :wink: ), the JSF offers much more.  

Taking the plan to acquire 65 F-35s to replace the existing 80 CF-18s.  Let's assume that they went with something else (don't really care which) and even doubled that number (assuming it was that simple - people might be surprised to find what the alternatives really cost, but they don't get the same pressure on this front as the F-35) to 130.  One then might get a larger share of producing 130 aircraft (they certainly won't get 100%), say over 3 - 6 yrs, instead of a smaller %  share of 3000+ F-35s over 20+ years.  I know from a business case point of view, which I'd prefer.  

Even if Canada somehow managed to spin some 'offset' deals and also start producing parts for the rest of the aircraft type they have acquired (i.e. make parts for the same aircraft used by other nations), they still lose out.  For one they are coming in late on many of these programs and so, to put it bluntly, all the good stuff is gone anyway (and don't think those countries/companies already producing those parts will make it easy for you either - I know I wouldn't).  More over, let's look at the production quantities for some of those programs (remembering also that many of these are already produced):

Eurofighter Typhoon: around 559 total to date across all tranches.  Even if you add in a couple of hundred more, it still won't top 1000;
Dassault Rafale: approx 180 ordered total.  Even if Dassault get more orders domestically and manage to eventually get some export customers, you won't see this even reach 500;
Saab Gripen: something like 250 produced to date.  Again, even if they get more exports (and good luck to them - personally I like the Gripen and believe the JAS-39 is the heir apparent to the Northrop F-5 series), they will also not reach 500; and
Super Hornet:  Something like 600 - 700 already on order (with most already produced).  Maybe with additional exports/domestic sales it will reach just over 1000.

None of these programs offers the industrial participation opportunities that countries are looking for.

Therefore from an industrial point of view, the F-35 wins hands down.  And this doesn't even touch on sustainment opportunities.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 18:08
by spazsinbad
Repeated on the recent Oz thread about Oz perhaps buying more Super Hornets, here is one newspaper report on the cost of ONE Super Hornet. One Oz dollar currently buys 1.05 US dorrars.

Super Hornets considered amid fears about JSF 13 Dec 2012 by: Cameron Stewart and Brendan Nicholson

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6535732600

"THE Gillard government will consider buying up to 24 new F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter-bombers in a decision that would sharply reduce reliance on the troubled Joint Strike Fighter.

The possible Super Hornet purchase, expected to cost well over $100 million each, is part of a range of multi-billion-dollar air-power options due to be revealed today by Defence Minister Stephen Smith...."

A subscription is required to see any more so don't bother.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 18:27
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:Repeated on the recent Oz thread about Oz perhaps buying more Super Hornets, here is one newspaper report on the cost of ONE Super Hornet. One Oz dollar currently buys 1.05 US dorrars.

Super Hornets considered amid fears about JSF 13 Dec 2012 by: Cameron Stewart and Brendan Nicholson

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6535732600

"THE Gillard government will consider buying up to 24 new F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter-bombers in a decision that would sharply reduce reliance on the troubled Joint Strike Fighter.

The possible Super Hornet purchase, expected to cost well over $100 million each, is part of a range of multi-billion-dollar air-power options due to be revealed today by Defence Minister Stephen Smith...."

A subscription is required to see any more so don't bother.

This would make sense. There has been scuttlebutt going around that Boeing has requested extra jets, but the budget hasn't been increased or an option contract issued. They could either be FMS jets, or perhaps F/A-18 Block III demonstrator aircraft. Checking BuNo lists suggests that at least one F/A-18F is operated by Boeing themselves. Most early model LRIP jets are in VX(NAVAIR) use, or removed from service. The remaining jets, probably between 1 to 4, haven't been fully tracked or accounted for.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 18:52
by 1st503rdsgt
gtx wrote:...from an industrial point of view, the F-35 wins hands down.  And this doesn't even touch on sustainment opportunities.
Not necessarily, Dassault typically offers full technology transfer and domestic manufacture. Of course, that's more of a benefit to 3rd would countries looking to enhance their aviation sectors. Canada, on the other hand, is NOT a 3rd would country and already has a well developed aviation industry that would probably gain more from work on a newer design.

Then again, I suspect this whole brouhaha has rather more to do with childish anti-Americanism than anything else; which is why I think Canada should be expelled from the program before we send any more money north for F-35 parts. Time to $hit or get off the pot Canada.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 19:07
by spazsinbad
Canadian brouhaha about the F-35 purchase looks like an internal political fight to me and less about the aircraft capability except for the nebulous cost issues. Apparently the incumbent government there are incompetent, probably the opposition are also.

Internal political fights in Oz revolve around personal attributes of politicians rather than 'agreed' defence matters usually. IF there is disagreement it is just a 'punch and judy show' and soon forgotten. US politicians seem to me to be just knuckleheads - willing to take that country to all kinds of fiscal hell just because they can. So different strokes for different folks I guess.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 19:16
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Canadian brouhaha about the F-35 purchase looks like an internal political fight to me and less about the aircraft capability except for the nebulous cost issues. Apparently the incumbent government there are incompetent, probably the opposition are also.
Maybe you're right; but if you look at what Canadians are saying on the boards of their own news outlets, you'll see what I mean.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 19:47
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:Canadian brouhaha about the F-35 purchase looks like an internal political fight to me and less about the aircraft capability except for the nebulous cost issues. Apparently the incumbent government there are incompetent, probably the opposition are also.

Internal political fights in Oz revolve around personal attributes of politicians rather than 'agreed' defence matters usually. IF there is disagreement it is just a 'punch and judy show' and soon forgotten. US politicians seem to me to be just knuckleheads - willing to take that country to all kinds of fiscal hell just because they can. So different strokes for different folks I guess.

I don't really understand Canadian Politics, but after Kevin Rudd's (former Australian PM) performance... I became rapidly disillusioned with Australian politics, especially with regard to the military and procurement. At least in the US, everyone knows its dollars to lobbyists.. idiots on Wall Street can practically bribe congressman, make obscene profits from it.. and its all technically legal.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 19:47
by XanderCrews
1st503rdsgt wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Canadian brouhaha about the F-35 purchase looks like an internal political fight to me and less about the aircraft capability except for the nebulous cost issues. Apparently the incumbent government there are incompetent, probably the opposition are also.
Maybe you're right; but if you look at what Canadians are saying on the boards of their own news outlets, you'll see what I mean.


I believe you are both right. unlike the US where weapons tend to get bad press but are not really assigned to a "political side" if you will, Canadian projects are "owned" by a political party. Being pissy at this party now means the F-35 must be bad because they lied and the F-35 is them.

But of course that lie has been exposed and Canadians now have an excellent look at cost and now as adults they can maybe research and compare value to cost--- Just kidding!! they hate it and it costs too much. every other option out there would be better/cheaper than the F-35 no matter what it is but Canadians can't separate the politicos from the aircraft.

Its really odd too because I'm guessing Canadians have been lied to about things like their National Health Care Service but I don't see them Rioting about how other systems should be adopted instead. I think the F-35 was the first time a Canadian politician ever lied. ever. Naturally the Canadians are shocked and taken aback. They have to continue to act scandalized in the mean time. Innocence lost.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 19:50
by spazsinbad
'1st503rdsgt' said: "...if you look at what Canadians are saying on the boards of their own news outlets, you'll see what I mean." News outlet comments of any country are just drivel. Read positive comments about the F-35B here instead. :D

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 21:25
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Read positive comments about the F-35B here instead. :D
Eh?

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 21:38
by spazsinbad
Here 'ON this forum' it should have read - don't bother wasting your time reading drivel reader comments on newspaper websites. Clear? :D Perhaps you enjoy reading newspaper website reader comments. If so then - have at it. I won't.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 21:59
by geogen
hb_pencil wrote:Why do we need a "stop gap" at all?


As a prudent hedge against significant project uncertainties, schedule delays and cost increases for one thing.

To more seamlessly recapitalize the force structure in a less risky and more reliable manner.

A stopgap could be in the form of a Lease eg, alternative buy/split-buy outright, or SLEP and upgrade.

Defence planners can have all the available information in the world in front of them, but if planners lack the ability and willingness to critically assess said information and rather take a pre-conceived approach in assuming pre-conceived success according to advertised expectations etc, then the threat of moral hazard becomes more institutionalized and will more likely lead to facing unfavorable consequences down the road due to miscalculations.

Thus, it's probably justified to maintain a mix of options and alternatives in policy-making when fulfilling requirements.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 22:21
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:Why do we need a "stop gap" at all?


As a prudent hedge against significant project uncertainties, schedule delays and cost increases for one thing.


By spending at least 10 billion dollars or more to procure another capability? For a person continually going on and on about cost and capability, that's a pretty irresponsible suggestion. And how many delays have occurred in the past two years? Canada really can wait significantly after 2020 to replace the F-35 as we have the ability to refurbish our CF-18s for quite a while.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 22:34
by luke_sandoz
It is politics.

PM Harper is deeply detested by the Canadian Press who have very bad cases of Harper Derangement Syndrome. The government got lazy and instead of doing what Norway did - sell the idea to voters, they tried to slick & dazzle the acquisition and left a wide open flank for the Opposition and PM hating media to go all crazy and use the F-35 as the issue.

The F-35 is the only spending program in Canada that costs out over a 42 year period. The Canadians routinely use sole sourced contracts instead competitive tender to acquire military equipment, but somehow the analysis done by the RCAF to support the aircraft they wanted was "biased' and just an excuse to buy the "best for the boys".

Funny how the screaming, finger pointing press is saying nothing about the 42 year costs of Canada C17's, Leo 2 tanks and the new Herc J fleet - all the recent big sole sourced contracts.

Whatever happened to that thread mocking Canadian journalists. It was so entertaining but needs updating over the F-35 media con job.

Unread postPosted: 12 Dec 2012, 22:50
by XanderCrews
hb_pencil wrote:
geogen wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:Why do we need a "stop gap" at all?


As a prudent hedge against significant project uncertainties, schedule delays and cost increases for one thing.


By spending at least 10 billion dollars or more to procure another capability? For a person continually going on and on about cost and capability, that's a pretty irresponsible suggestion. And how many delays have occurred in the past two years? Canada really can wait significantly after 2020 to replace the F-35 as we have the ability to refurbish our CF-18s for quite a while.


Took the words right out of mouth.

Maybe some Gripens and Rafales as well? You know just As a prudent hedge against significant project uncertainties, schedule delays and cost increases with the hornets? Never can be too safe.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 00:34
by neurotech
hb_pencil wrote:By spending at least 10 billion dollars or more to procure another capability? For a person continually going on and on about cost and capability, that's a pretty irresponsible suggestion. And how many delays have occurred in the past two years? Canada really can wait significantly after 2020 to replace the F-35 as we have the ability to refurbish our CF-18s for quite a while.

The problem is refurbishing the CF-18s at an acceptable fleet level isn't cheap either. I would easily cost $1.2bn+ for 80 F/A-18s to refurbish them for operational use past 2020 in significant numbers.

The RAAF F-111s used practically every airframe and major part reasonably available in the boneyard to keep them flying. Even that wasn't enough to avoid a rapid increase in operational costs at the end. A major SLEP could have reversed that trend, but with Goon & Kopp around, that was doomed.

The USN F-14s experienced the same issue in the 2004-2006 timeframe. The costs were increasing significantly at the end. A SLEP could have delayed that, but the F/A-18E/Fs were replacing them at significantly less operational cost.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 03:57
by spazsinbad
High Cost Leads Canada to Review Plans to Buy F-35 Fighter Jets By IAN AUSTEN and CHRISTOPHER DREW Dec 12, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/busin ... .html?_r=0

"Canada said Wednesday that it would reconsider plans to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets after an independent audit found that the sophisticated stealth planes would cost substantially more than the government had promised.

The decision was an unusual step back by Stephen Harper, the prime minister, who has been a strident defender of the purchase despite widespread public criticism of the price. Two cabinet ministers said an independent panel would review a variety of options, including a version of Boeing’s Super Hornet fighter as well as sticking with the F-35, made by Lockheed Martin.

“We have hit the reset button and are taking the time to do a complete assessment of all available aircraft,” Rona Ambrose, the public works minister, told reporters in Ottawa....

...Ms. Ambrose and Mr. MacKay repeatedly used the word “reset” on Wednesday and avoided questions about what that step would mean in evaluating alternatives. The ministers and officials, however, did make it clear that no decision had been made to start a formal competition among aircraft manufacturers and acknowledged that it remained possible that Canada would stick with the F-35.

The review, Mr. MacKay said, would “ensure that a balance is maintained between the military needs and taxpayer interests.”...

...Possible alternatives to the F-35 include an updated version of Boeing’s F/A-18 Hornet, called the Super Hornet, and several European models. The Royal Canadian Air Force currently flies CF-18s, a version of the Hornet. While some of Canada’s jets date back about 30 years, Mr. MacKay said Wednesday that the fleet could be kept operational for at least another decade....

...Separately on Wednesday, the government also reduced its estimate of business that Canadian companies were likely to win from F-35 contracts to $9.8 billion from $12 billion."

AS USUAL best to read entire article at source. Thanks.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 04:03
by spazsinbad
F-35 Reports Released by Canadian Govt ... by Amy Butler Dec 12, 2012

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 613e0f081b

"
The Canadian government has officially released the parameters for moving forward with an F-18 replacement and shelving its earlier evaluation that led to the selection of the Lockheed Martin F-35.

“Last April, we set out a Seven-Point Plan to hit the reset button on the process to replace the CF-18 aircraft,” the Honorable Rona Ambrose, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, said in a press release. “With the release of the Terms of Reference that will guide the evaluation of alternative fighter aircraft, we are demonstrating that we are serious about looking at all available options to replace the CF-18’s.”

Then follows LINKS to various documents so best go to the URL above to see these links.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 16:03
by m
Is any study known what it will cost Canada, dropping the F35 project and ordering another jet, as well as a economical industrial study?
Both have been done in the Netherlands. Dropping the F35 and ordering another jet would be more expensive then ordering and staying in the F35 project (Dutch Audit Office).

How many this really would have cost the Dutch is unknown, because of expected claims (MOU’s with other countries as for example the US, Italy and Norway.

Circumstances differ by country and obviously can not be compared, but still the invested Canadian money can be seen as lost ((some $700 million?)
Suppose it will cost Canada, as well the Dutch calculated concerning a the Dutch situation, a lot of money.


The economical factor:
Quote: Separately on Wednesday, the government also reduced its estimate of business that Canadian companies were likely to win from F-35 contracts to $9.8 billion from $12 billion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/busin ... html?_r=1&

Doubt it Canada will have economical profits like this, in case ordering another jet.
Concernig the Dutch; in case an other jet, no more then some pototoes for the Dutch industry compared with the F35.
As well as concernig high end and knowledege industry there is nothing to win in case another jet.

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 18:14
by luke_sandoz
from the milnews.ca site . . . what is going on in Canada that you will never find out from the Canuck media.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1gDFVO ... RfQ1U/edit

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2012, 18:21
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'luke_sandoz'. Who'da thought this conclusion was relevant? :D

"D. Conclusion
Any decision to acquire next generation fighter capability will be driven foremost by the operational
needs of the Canadian Forces. Maximizing industrial opportunities is an important part of ensuring that
Canadians benefit as much as possible from an acquisition, but it is one of many elements that factor
into acquisition decisions."

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2012, 14:31
by popcorn
So why aren't the Canadian industrial partners closing ranks and making more noise?

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/winnipeg-aer ... -1.1078066

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 04:34
by 131stfwfan
You know it's funny, as I'm reading these various threads on here it seems like every argument is between the F-35 fanboys or the F-35 'haters'.. There’s no middle ground on here. The only reason I say this is because I don't post much on here but seriously.. Back up what you’re saying with facts. Think-tank’s and LM PowerPoint slides don't count.. Neither do oblivious claims that come from overly fabricated media.

This site has lost a lot of its forum 'credibility'.. Sad. God forbid anyone say the F-35 is not the best and only option on the table.

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 05:05
by spazsinbad
What are 'oblivious claims'?

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 05:41
by johnwill
131stfwfan wrote:
This site has lost a lot of its forum 'credibility'.. Sad. God forbid anyone say the F-35 is not the best and only option on the table.


Let's see, .... 131st FW flies F-15 out of Lambert Field, St. Louis. No bias there, I'm sure.

:cheers:

Just kidding of course. Please consider posting more often. Maybe you can return some of our lost 'credibility'.

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 05:48
by popcorn
131stfwfan wrote:You know it's funny, as I'm reading these various threads on here it seems like every argument is between the F-35 fanboys or the F-35 'haters'.. There’s no middle ground on here. The only reason I say this is because I don't post much on here but seriously.. Back up what you’re saying with facts. Think-tank’s and LM PowerPoint slides don't count.. Neither do oblivious claims that come from overly fabricated media.

This site has lost a lot of its forum 'credibility'.. Sad. God forbid anyone say the F-35 is not the best and only option on the table.
j

The defense departments/ministries,and armed forces of the countries involved in the JSF program are on the record about how the F-35 will benefit them. These are the people,who have direct access to,factual,data and have the expertise on how the aircraft will fit into their future concepts of,operation. It depends on whom you think is more credible, those who are in the game or those hissing from the bleachers.

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 06:17
by neurotech
131stfwfan wrote:You know it's funny, as I'm reading these various threads on here it seems like every argument is between the F-35 fanboys or the F-35 'haters'.. There’s no middle ground on here. The only reason I say this is because I don't post much on here but seriously.. Back up what you’re saying with facts. Think-tank’s and LM PowerPoint slides don't count.. Neither do oblivious claims that come from overly fabricated media.

This site has lost a lot of its forum 'credibility'.. Sad. God forbid anyone say the F-35 is not the best and only option on the table.

Hey, I've posted plenty of comments supporting the F/A-18E/F but I don't "hate" the F-35 either. I have a lot of respect for Vadm. David Venlet & Gen. Chris Bogdan and the work they've done, and Gen Bogdan will continue to do as JSF PEO.

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 17:17
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:Hey, I've posted plenty of comments supporting the F/A-18E/F but I don't "hate" the F-35 either. I have a lot of respect for Vadm. David Venlet & Gen. Chris Bogdan and the work they've done, and Gen Bogdan will continue to do as JSF PEO.


Much appreciated BTW 8) Learned a lot of things good and bad about the Super Hornets.

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 18:15
by arrow-nautics
Sigh, one of the big problems with the KMPG report was it included pilots wages. However, all other purchase options don't. To take this a step further, no one has priced anything beyond the F-35. Super Hornet this & Super Hornet that & blah blah. Where's that quote? Ah yes, quoting other options whether or not they be higher or lower will show the public any decision will cost a pretty penny & if the media were to do this then they'd lose their "The F-35 is a disaster" golden goose headline. Do you think the average Canadian cares to investigate the guts or makeup of the 40+ billion figure or just have a knee jerk reaction & conclude the purchase is "ballooning"?

FFS!

:bang:

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 21:37
by spazsinbad
Mythbusting the F-35 by Aaron Wherry on Saturday, December 15, 2012

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/12/15/myth ... -the-f-35/

Most of this post is on Facebook as indicated. To see comments by article author go to URL.

"A note posted to Facebook by Chris Alexander, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence. (It seems to have gone out from the PMO as an internal Conservative memo on Thursday evening.)

Replacing Canada’s CF-18s – Just the Facts

Media have incorrectly reported on some aspects of the replacement of Canada’s CF-18s. Here are the facts:

Myth 1: Costs have risen from $9 billion to $45 billion.

Fact 1: Our government has set a $9 billion budget for the purchase of new fighter aircraft. This amount is for the purchase of new aircraft and will not change. The remaining costs are the long-term costs associated with owning and flying these planes, such as maintenance, fuel and salaries. These costs are now presented over 42 years, as compared to 20 years previously. It goes without saying that the dollar figure for operating and sustainment costs for more years will be proportionately higher.

Myth 2: The Auditor General’s report increased the costs from $16 billion to $25 billion

Fact 2: The Auditor General recommended that operating costs be included in the total lifecycle cost estimates, resulting in the apparent “increase”. This is not new money as DND currently spends this money for our CF-18 fleet. These costs are currently being incurred by our fleet of CF-18s and will be incurred by whichever aircraft is chosen to replace the current fleet.

Myth 3: The review of options is a competition

Fact 3: We have a seven point plan that has reset the process to replace Canada’s aging CF-18s. As part of that plan, we have released the rules that will guide the review of alternative fighter aircraft. No decision on a replacement will be made until that work is complete.

Myth 4: Costs are rising, so $9 billion will not be enough to pay for these aircraft.

Fact 4: We have identified $9 billion for the purchase of replacement aircraft. We will not exceed that amount.

Myth 5: Canada is leaving the Joint Strike Fighter development program.

Fact 5: Canada will not end Canadian industrial access to F-35 contracts before the Seven Point Plan is complete and a decision on the replacement of Canada’s CF-18s has been made.

Myth 6: The government did not follow the rules when it released costs over 20 years.

Fact 6: Previously lifecycle costing was done over 20 years, consistent with long-held practices for this type of acquisition. The Auditor General recommended extending that time frame to cover the complete costs over the full life cycle; we complied by adopting the aircraft’s entire program life of 42 years.

Myth 7: The options analysis will find that the F-35 is the only viable option because it is the only plane that meets the Statement of Requirements.

Fact: 7: The original mandatory requirements for this purchase (known as the Statement of Requirements) have been set-aside. Once the options analysis is complete, a determination will be made as to whether a new statement is necessary.

Myth 8: Canadian companies have only received benefits equal to 1% of the total cost of the contract.

Fact 8: Over 70 Canadian companies have won nearly $450 million in contracts already. We believe our world leading aerospace industry will be able to continue to compete for and win contracts in the global marketplace."

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 23:28
by 131stfwfan
Well the 131st has been gone for a while now.. Yes I live in St. Louis but I'm more so of an Eagle fanatic than Super Hornet.. Which is not remotely involved with the F-35 program.

I'm just saying if anyone disagrees with the F-35.. In any aspect.. They get attacked or a really sarcastic remark like what just happened above.

What's the point of having a dicussion if everything is one sided?

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2012, 23:47
by hb_pencil
131stfwfan wrote:Well the 131st has been gone for a while now.. Yes I live in St. Louis but I'm more so of an Eagle fanatic than Super Hornet.. Which is not remotely involved with the F-35 program.

I'm just saying if anyone disagrees with the F-35.. In any aspect.. They get attacked or a really sarcastic remark like what just happened above.

What's the point of having a dicussion if everything is one sided?


Oh, I don't think that's true at all. I think this forum requires you to bring evidence to support your assertions. What's different here than with other forums is that there are actually people who have experience and strong knowledge about the program who can articulate it. This isn't a bunch of armchair commentators, but people who can answer very specific questions about the nature of fighter development. Much of what I've said has already been through rigorous review, long before it was ever written here. Other posters have brought what is often decades of technical expertise to the forum.I think its somewhat telling therefore that a lot of them are supporters of the program.

Alot of the attitude to F-35 opponents is based on prior forum history. Some of them continually come here with horribly biased information (and often incorrect) information, then spout it as gospel. The attitude they receive is an accumulation of that view. Others with no prior posting come here and say the forum equivalent of "OMGZ F-22/PAKFA SO MUCH BETTER THAN F-35 AND CHEAPER TOO!" As someone in the field for over a decade, I'm likely not going to react well to that.

If you want a better understanding of the situation, I'd ask a question. You'll likely get a far more balanced answer than when someone is responding to the above comment.All of us can bring a wide array of views and statistics to the debate that can support our assertions.

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 00:55
by arrow-nautics
131stfwfan wrote:Well the 131st has been gone for a while now.. Yes I live in St. Louis but I'm more so of an Eagle fanatic than Super Hornet.. Which is not remotely involved with the F-35 program.

I'm just saying if anyone disagrees with the F-35.. In any aspect.. They get attacked or a really sarcastic remark like what just happened above.

What's the point of having a discussion if everything is one sided?
I`m an F-35 supporter but I prefer to talk about the aspects of it that are questionable like fuselage cracks etc, not the same old Pierre Sprey, Winslow Wheeler blah blah. Every attack on this aircraft, the F-22, Nighthawk, stealth in general has cliched accusations against it. Some true, some not. I find the detractors of the F-35 don`t appreciate its kit.

As for the FA-18F or the EA-18G - I despise them but not because they are bad aircraft. NOT AT ALL! I wouldn`t mind a stop gap F-18 purchase for Canada provided we buy 30 to 35 F-35`s or Typhoons at least. It`s not that I`m down on the F-18 at all. But the whole fleet? We could buy the FA-18F & EA-18G for sight seeing or just enough for us to feel tough, still have airshows & to have jets that have no useful long purpose. At least our pilots will still have jobs. Sigh, this stupid country.

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 01:51
by neurotech
arrow-nautics wrote:As for the FA-18F or the EA-18G - I despise them but not because they are bad aircraft. NOT AT ALL! I wouldn`t mind a stop gap F-18 purchase for Canada provided we buy 30 to 35 F-35`s or Typhoons at least. It`s not that I`m down on the F-18 at all. But the whole fleet? We could buy the FA-18F & EA-18G for sight seeing or just enough for us to feel tough, still have airshows & to have jets that have no useful long purpose. At least our pilots will still have jobs. Sigh, this stupid country.

That is a little negative isn't it. In Libya, the EA-18Gs helped take out the air defense network, so other jets could get in and drop bombs on targets. B-2 bombers were also used.

With the F-35 in first to take out air defenses, a F/A-18F would be quite useful for dropping bombs on targets, or CAS or FAC(A) missions. It sure wouldn't stay as an "air show" bird in a real combat operation.

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 02:06
by arrow-nautics
neurotech wrote:
arrow-nautics wrote:As for the FA-18F or the EA-18G - I despise them but not because they are bad aircraft. NOT AT ALL! I wouldn`t mind a stop gap F-18 purchase for Canada provided we buy 30 to 35 F-35`s or Typhoons at least. It`s not that I`m down on the F-18 at all. But the whole fleet? We could buy the FA-18F & EA-18G for sight seeing or just enough for us to feel tough, still have airshows & to have jets that have no useful long purpose. At least our pilots will still have jobs. Sigh, this stupid country.

That is a little negative isn't it. In Libya, the EA-18Gs helped take out the air defense network, so other jets could get in and drop bombs on targets. B-2 bombers were also used.

With the F-35 in first to take out air defenses, a F/A-18F would be quite useful for dropping bombs on targets, or CAS or FAC(A) missions. It sure wouldn't stay as an "air show" bird in a real combat operation.
Given different possible scenarios in war situations in combination with our NATO & NORAD responsibilities I'd like to have 2 aircraft available for differing roles. Redundancy. So my not wanting the Super Hornet as the whole fleet is my only concern, right or wrong. We can't see the future but I advocate a stop gap. The flip side also includes having to deal with the Sukhoi T47 or 50 etc.

Despise was too strong a word - politics got me there. I despise the Boeing lobbying. My bad

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 02:31
by neurotech
arrow-nautics wrote:Given different possible scenarios in war situations in combination with our NATO & NORAD responsibilities I'd like to have 2 aircraft available for differing roles. Redundancy. So my not wanting the Super Hornet as the whole fleet is my only concern, right or wrong. We can't see the future but I advocate a stop gap. The flip side also includes having to deal with the Sukhoi T47 or 50 etc.

Despise was too strong a word - politics got me there. I despise the Boeing lobbying. My bad

I was under the impression that the issue is the sticker shock over the 40 year operating costs, more than Boeing lobbying.

I agree that Canada could do well with a split fleet. Buy F/A-18Fs today, and F-35s in FY2018 during FRP. This gives them the benefit of maintaining capability as the CF-18s age, and still get F-35s for their many benefits.

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 02:45
by arrow-nautics
The sticker shock is the issue. But behind the scenes the NDP are advocating Boeing. Winslow has testified by invite by Jack Harris of the NDP to speak against the F-35. The NDP are openly advocating 2 engines. The Liberal's have been more on the fence.

In the USA as you know, whether it be Democrats or Republicans, when it comes to military spending both parties are closer in agreement than apart....at least compared to Canada. In this country, if a government has its signature on a military acquisition, the opposition ALWAYS goes adversarial for partisanship, power & "it's not ours so kill it to win". Canada probably spends 1/5 of the military budget on higher costs or simple cancellation fee waste because of this garbage. It's embarrassing & stupid.

Rotting useless subs? Sikosky helicopters instead of EH-101s? The Arrow (started out Liberal) & on & on...Here we go again.

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 06:18
by madrat
It makes you wonder if the waste isn't inspired by ngo's funded through foreign countries parallel to how the US usurped the Soviet purchase processes and forced them into a belly up spending cycle...

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 16:58
by luke_sandoz
madrat wrote:It makes you wonder if the waste isn't inspired by ngo's funded through foreign countries parallel to how the US usurped the Soviet purchase processes and forced them into a belly up spending cycle...


Look up "The Rideau Institute"

Got caught this weekend trying to stuff Letters to the Editor sections of newspapers with a fake grass roots write in campaign.

Reference on that milnews.ca thread from above.

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 19:13
by archeman
luke_sandoz wrote:
madrat wrote:It makes you wonder if the waste isn't inspired by ngo's funded through foreign countries parallel to how the US usurped the Soviet purchase processes and forced them into a belly up spending cycle...


Look up "The Rideau Institute"

Got caught this weekend trying to stuff Letters to the Editor sections of newspapers with a fake grass roots write in campaign.

Reference on that milnews.ca thread from above.



http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... attention/


” These steps included a listing of newspaper email addresses, and phrasings that could be used to express concerns about both deals — these sentences were found over and over in the letters sent to the Post.

...The second set of spam letters opposed the purchase of 65 F-35s, on pacifistic grounds. “Canada needs to reduce its military spending,” these letters declared. “$45-billion should be used instead for social programs … for the price of a single F-35 stealth fighter, 3,400 new teachers could be hired.”

Fair points and worthy of print — except these comments lost all their currency when they were made over and over, supposedly on the initiative of different letter writers.

To their credit, letters in this second group clearly identified themselves as spam. At the bottom of each, a note read: “This letter was written by the sender and delivered through Ceasefire.ca … a project of the Rideau Institute.”....

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 19:19
by arkadyrenko
What I don't get about the whole Canada arms debate is that they haven't bothered to define why they actually need the fighters.

If Canada envisions conducting expeditionary warfare against hostiles with substantial air defense assets, then they will need a stealthy strike fighter. If their primary concern is air soverignty and Russian bombers, then stealth is not as important.

(Or, this is the state of current military / political discussion. Its all about costs and capabilities (newest and greatest gadgets), not about a procurement plan that fits the nations strategic requirements.

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 20:39
by XanderCrews
arkadyrenko wrote:What I don't get about the whole Canada arms debate is that they haven't bothered to define why they actually need the fighters.

If Canada envisions conducting expeditionary warfare against hostiles with substantial air defense assets, then they will need a stealthy strike fighter. If their primary concern is air soverignty and Russian bombers, then stealth is not as important.

(Or, this is the state of current military / political discussion. Its all about costs and capabilities (newest and greatest gadgets), not about a procurement plan that fits the nations strategic requirements.


As long as Canada is a part of UN/NATO they must be prepared to operate outside their own borders.

Withdrawing from these commitments would mean a second look at military objectives.

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 20:48
by hb_pencil
arkadyrenko wrote:What I don't get about the whole Canada arms debate is that they haven't bothered to define why they actually need the fighters.


http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first- ... ex-eng.asp

I think the section entitled Contributing to International Peace and Security – Projecting Leadership Abroad clearly states what you desire.

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 20:54
by arkadyrenko
Those are generic policy statements, as a member of NATO, they do have to be prepared to conduct a war. But that doesn't define an operational need or role for the fighters.

That is a weakness for the overall fighter discussion. If they state we need stealth, because we envision conducting operations in high threat areas, then that is one issue. But they haven't even gotten there. Canada, without a defined need for the F-35, cannot crediblly defend the need for stealth.

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2012, 23:50
by neurotech
arkadyrenko wrote:Those are generic policy statements, as a member of NATO, they do have to be prepared to conduct a war. But that doesn't define an operational need or role for the fighters.

That is a weakness for the overall fighter discussion. If they state we need stealth, because we envision conducting operations in high threat areas, then that is one issue. But they haven't even gotten there. Canada, without a defined need for the F-35, cannot crediblly defend the need for stealth.

I know I'm being repetitive ...
The F-35 has some major advantages (beyond stealth);
- Better range on internal fuel
- Internal weapons (reducing drag compared from pylon or conformal weapons )
- Better sensor package (EODAS)
The F135 engine is considerably more reliable than previous engines. The F100-PW-129 has an excellent reliability record. This negates the need for a hard requirement of 2 engines for reliability.

Could Canada "reduce" its military capability with respect to NATO? yes... without major fallout. The CF-18 has experienced major capability gaps issues during NATO action before, and it is probably best that Canada at least maintain comparable capability with with NATO allies.

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 02:21
by hb_pencil
arkadyrenko wrote:Those are generic policy statements, as a member of NATO, they do have to be prepared to conduct a war. But that doesn't define an operational need or role for the fighters.

That is a weakness for the overall fighter discussion. If they state we need stealth, because we envision conducting operations in high threat areas, then that is one issue. But they haven't even gotten there. Canada, without a defined need for the F-35, cannot crediblly defend the need for stealth.


And you know this how? Because its not readily available on the net? They did do that analysis between 2005 to 2010, which included simulations and many staff exercises. In 2005 they didn't really have a preference, however after doing a number of analysis they came to the view that the F-35 was the best choice.

Really what is code here is that you don't agree with their choice/assessment.
The project office was run by several pilots and other RCAF members with tens if not hundreds of years of relevant experience in this field. A lot of them flew in Kosovo, the Gulf or during the cold war. To state that they haven't done any operational assessment is completely wrong and frankly kinda ridiculous.

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 11:29
by arrow-nautics
Correct hb pencil. The fact that no external or government tendering was done doesn't mean that the RCAF &/or DND didn't conduct internal studies. They did quite extensively & it is a matter of public record on the F-35 file.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Can ... ets-05739/

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 21:18
by m
A very interesting PDF file (probably have been linked already by spazinbad somewhere)

Flying the F-35, Canadian Defence Review, October 2012

In the October 2012 issue of Canadian Defence Review, Joetey Attariwala interviews former RCAF CF-18 pilot Billie Flynn who is now a Lockheed Martin test pilot on the F-35.
http://f-35.ca/2012/flying-the-f-35-can ... ober-2012/

Full report PDF:
http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/ ... t-2012.pdf

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 21:33
by arrow-nautics
@ arkadyrenko.

I think it would make for a great discussion if we, amongst ourselves had this discussion: why does Canada need or not need the F-35?

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 22:02
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2012, 22:30
by SpudmanWP
Several questions have to be asked.

1. What mission will they perform?

2. What capabilities are needed?

3. Which planes fill that need?

4. What are the total lifetime costs?

5. What offsets are being offered?

6. What factors will be weighed in the purchase decision?


The key and most of the debate will happen in #6.

Planes like the F-35 obviously have a higher survival rate yet will have a higher initial purchase price of planes like the Gripen. Non VLO planes will have to rely on more expensive stand-off munitions (when attacking defended targets) while the F-35 will be able to get the job done with shorter-ranged (and cheaper) weapons. For many missions, 4th gen could require supporting assets (escort, ISR, decoy, etc) while the F-35 is designed to do without.

How will the selection process weigh these and other similar issues (beyond plane X meets spec Y)?

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 01:21
by arkadyrenko
arrow-nautics:

Arguments for the F-35:

1) Advanced stealth strike fighter. As Spudwan-WP mentioned, this carries cheap munitions to the target in a high threat environment.
2) Advanced multi spectrum spensor suite, and with full integration.
3) Very good range, on internal fuel alone.
4) Stealth
5) The USAF is buying a ton of them. (This has a host of attendent upgrade benefits)

Arguments against the F-35:
1) With capability comes complexity, maintenance is unknown but probably not very nice, training is harder,
2) With capability comes cost, higher cost per flying hour and higher cost per purchase.
3) Incomplete development program, which has shown bad performance, and you'll be buying an airplane which will be delivered in 10 years and finished development in 5.

Those are the arguments right now, but lets then look at Canada's particulars.
1) Canada is a huge country with a substantial amount of ground to cover. This suggests that Canada requires more airframes, not less.
2) Canada does not face an advanced within tactical fighter range. (Unless you count the US of A) This reduces Canada's immediate threat to warships and bombers.
3) In the NATO Alliance, there will be substantial stealthy striking power, making a Canadian contribution redundent. (See the Libyan campaign for example) Likewise, NATO doesn't enforce its military spending requirements, so Canada can safely ignore any offensive operations requirement. Furthermore, NATO has shied away from conducting wars against tough nations. On the other hand, NORAD is a much more pressing and definable mission.
4) Canada requires ASW, Maritime Patrol, Naval (especially Artic) capabilities as well as an air force to enforce those holdings.

The first thing which jumps to my mind are these two conditions: Lots of ground to cover and no advanced threats.

Now, comparing the Canadian requirements with the F-35 capabilites, I get this:
1) F-35 is definately too advanced for the primary role of Canadian fighters, which will be airspace soverignty against Russian bombers. F-35 does contain the capability to conduct naval dominance for Canadian waters, though that becomes more relevant when the Russians actually use their fleet more often.
2) F-35 cost requirements, Canada only planned to buy 65, prevent Canada from buying enough fighters to adequately cover the country. Or, enough fighters to even pretend to cover the country. I base this on the idea that with 65 fighters, you'll probably get 50 or so active fighters, the rest are on training missions. Of those 50, you can only base them at most 3 places, probably only 2. One base covers the capital, the other ??? There is a lot of territory left over.
3) But, the F-35 represents the primary airplane of the NATO alliance, and in particular the USAF. That gives the F-35 a strong upgrade capability as time goes forward.
4) Conversely, the F-35 program right now has very high uncertainty, about budget and delivery date. If it could, Canada would do well to let other countries iron out the F-35 bugs and then start buying the plane when it reaches full price and capability certainty.

Personally, I think that Canada would do best to break apart its fighter requirements into two segments. The first would focus on airspace soverignty. This requires numbers more than capability, as the planes require only a powerful lookdown / shootdown radar and decent ECM systems. The second would look towards the NATO alliance as well as Naval Strike missions against ships operating in the Artic. You can quickly see where this is going: buy Gripens (or F-18s) and then buy F-35s when the program begins full production. Or, copy the USN and the Australians, both of whom are hedging their bets.

One final question is an issue of Canadian basing strategies. Given the sheer size of their country, what is their air defense strategy, if they have one.

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 04:29
by delvo
SpudmanWP wrote:For many missions, 4th gen could require supporting assets (escort, ISR, decoy, etc) while the F-35 is designed to do without.
What support aircraft does Canada have of its own?

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 08:05
by pushoksti
delvo wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:For many missions, 4th gen could require supporting assets (escort, ISR, decoy, etc) while the F-35 is designed to do without.
What support aircraft does Canada have of its own?


USAF. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 08:32
by hb_pencil
arkadyrenko wrote:Those are the arguments right now, but lets then look at Canada's particulars.
1) Canada is a huge country with a substantial amount of ground to cover. This suggests that Canada requires more airframes, not less.


The problem with Canada is not the number of airframes. Actually the RCAF often has an effective strength of less than 65 F/A-18s in operation because of the sheer number of aircraft undergoing overhaul.. Rather its the stress on the air crews and maintenance personnel that is the problem. Its basically sufficient to cover Canada's NORAD requirements, but gets stretched a bit when offshore contingencies occur. Its tough to deploy a large number of support personnel up north to defend against bombers or on an expeditionary operations.

Dropping to 65 aircraft and utilizing a PBL system should allow Canada to operate more aircraft out in the field. It should reduce the maintenance burden on frontline staff by pushing a lot of the maintenance tasks up to the depot.

arkadyrenko wrote:Personally, I think that Canada would do best to break apart its fighter requirements into two segments. The first would focus on airspace soverignty. This requires numbers more than capability, as the planes require only a powerful lookdown / shootdown radar and decent ECM systems. The second would look towards the NATO alliance as well as Naval Strike missions against ships operating in the Artic. You can quickly see where this is going: buy Gripens (or F-18s) and then buy F-35s when the program begins full production. Or, copy the USN and the Australians, both of whom are hedging their bets.


There are several flawed assumptions there. First the US Navy and Australia aren't really "hedging their bets." The RAAF bought F/A-18E/Fs to fill an urgent shortfall in capability related to the end of life of their F/A-18C fleets. The Navy is only paying for replacement Shornets for squadrons; most of their current buys are growlers, which is for an entirely different mission. Canada doesn't have that issue because our structural upgrade process is still in operation and allows us to maintain an operational fleet until well past 2020. We don't really need to "hedge our bets" in the same way because we can wait until 2016 to see the aircraft in service (or nearly in service.)

Second I dispute whether your claimed cost savings even exist. A two aircraft fleet will also increase overheads on operation. You're going to need to run two training operations, lose economies of scale on O&M with commonality ect. In 1980 we decided to move away from a two aircraft fleet (F-14 or F-15 with F-16 or F/A-18) because of that very issue. Its why today you see airlines try to consolidate around one prime contractor and engine.

Furthermore its quite likely that none of the alternatives are cheaper, despite what you think. The RCAF's options analysis in 2010 found that the F-35 was still the cheapest aircraft to operate of the options they reviewed. Considering the KPMG report validated most of the AF's numbers, then there hasn't been much change in the actual numbers. The Super Hornet was not found to be cheaper, particularly when they considered the lifecycle costs after 2030 when the US Navy pulls their aircraft out of service. Gripen's predicted acquisition cost is as much as the F-35 at $80 million a pop.

Really its fiscal lunacy to suggest that Canada should pay a $20 Billion dollar "insurance" for a program that is already at this stage of the development program. We're only two years away from the Marines standing up an operational squadron. Much of the current development work on structure and physical hardware is complete. Few programs at this stage see major cost overruns like the ones that would warrant an insurance policy. Maybe in 2009 it might have made sense, but not at this point.


arkadyrenko wrote:One final question is an issue of Canadian basing strategies. Given the sheer size of their country, what is their air defense strategy, if they have one.



It begs the question whether you should be making any claims whatsoever when you ask such an ignorant question as whether Canada has an Air Defence Strategy. The country has a extremely well developed air defence strategy, in part because its integrated within the NORAD Framework. There are numerous forward operating bases in the north that aircraft are regularly deployed to. I could go into it but alot of that would be copying what this study says, particularly on Page 10 and 11.

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/F-35%20and%20t ... curity.pdf

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 13:43
by arrow-nautics
Good talks & good points. I myself wish Canada could get 30 to 40 F-35's to help out in overseas or hostile territory sorties. The remaining jets in the fleet could be FA-18E/F or some Growlers. Perhaps Canada doesn't need the F-35 but I tend to sway more in to the "I want it anyway" camp (to a certain degree) since I don't have a crystal ball nor can I see the future. The possibilities of low frequency radar concerns making the argument to acquire some a non-starter doesn't sway me since non-VLO jets will suffer this shortcoming as well as others. Also given the tech on board besides VLO has me concerned we may need some.

Finally, the decision not to buy would leave Canada with no VLO or more advanced jets which may be a problem, on the flipside if we don't need them I'm sure the US wouldn't have a problem with us selling them back or moving them to an approved ally nation such as Israel. It's true the resale will be significantly less than the acquisition cost but the real reason for heavy expenditures on the F-35 has nothing to do with acquisition & everything to do with maintaining & operating the jets. After all, if acquisition costs were the only concern & all jets had the same operating costs we wouldn't be worried about the F-35 to begin with.

In the big scheme of things I think Canada is locked in too much on the F-35 anyway. Hence why the Harper government continues to employ every stall tactic ever politically invented. After a while, "Too early to tell, too late to stop" will become "TOO LATE TO STOP".

We may already be there.

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 21:20
by neurotech
Air Defense "plan"? Australia used the F-111s for long range patrol, now they use F/A-18Fs with "big tanks" and KC-707 & A330 tankers. The F/A-18F can easily carry the AIM-120s for long range defense. There is no reason why Canada couldn't do the same, medium term.

@hb_pencil The F/A-18Fs in RAAF service replaced the F-111s, not the F/A-18A+ (RAAF doesn't technically have F/A-18Cs)

With 65 jets "available" for service, the F/A-18E/F jets could be used to augment the CF-18s, without blowing the budget or majorly reducing the F-35 buy. It is not hard to blow $5m in additional annual O&M costs when no major SLEP is involved. Those kind numbers justify 12-24 F/A-18E/Fs in the next few years.

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 21:46
by arrow-nautics
Further to "what I want" & a problem with it. One problem in servicing 2 aircraft is that if Canada were to buy 40 F-35's & let's say 40 FA-18E/F's`, it is unfortunately going to cost Canada more than just simply buying 65 F-35's. Instead of 2 repair bases, you have 4 or double serviced at the same bases which is the more likely scenario. Double pay & training for pilots is required. Redundancy gives way to balancing between priority repair. This costs more than running 1 aircraft. There's some old truths in jet procurement as we all know, one of them is "why?" Why have a 2 pronged fleet?

I had a question I researched on an f.16 search & google but I couldn`t get a straight answer. I didnèt want to start a whole new thread on this so here goes: North America uses A & A1 fuels & Russia uses T-1 & TS-1 fuels. Are these fuels compatible or do Russian ones run on an entirely different formula?

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 22:05
by hb_pencil
neurotech wrote:Air Defense "plan"? Australia used the F-111s for long range patrol, now they use F/A-18Fs with "big tanks" and KC-707 & A330 tankers. The F/A-18F can easily carry the AIM-120s for long range defense. There is no reason why Canada couldn't do the same, medium term.


We already do that with our CF-18s. Our current fleet is seen as sufficient for our current needs up until 2020 or so.

neurotech wrote:@hb_pencil The F/A-18Fs in RAAF service replaced the F-111s, not the F/A-18A+ (RAAF doesn't technically have F/A-18Cs)


Right about the A+s. I was more referring to the upcoming buy of Super Hornets than the previous one because the Legacy hornets were to be replaced by JSFs.

neurotech wrote:With 65 jets "available" for service, the F/A-18E/F jets could be used to augment the CF-18s, without blowing the budget or majorly reducing the F-35 buy. It is not hard to blow $5m in additional annual O&M costs when no major SLEP is involved. Those kind numbers justify 12-24 F/A-18E/Fs in the next few years.


Cost is still an issue, even without SLEP. I can't see how we would procure a meaningful capability for under $10 billion, for 20 years of service.

Furthermore, a split fleet really causes a lot of problems for our personnel capacity, which affects squadrons flexibility in contingency planning. So lets say Canada wants to deploy a very large force abroad or an extended period of time. If we only have 60% of our staff trained on the F-35, and 40% on F/A-18s, that might prevent an indefinite deployment, because we couldn't rotate sufficient number of individuals in and out of theater. In such a situation,Canada can also rely on the US to assist in air defence, which is done through NORAD auspices.

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 22:45
by arrow-nautics
It is too bad the F-35 has this much of a bum rap in Canada. Even the biggest detractors have to admit that Canada is likely in for a 30 billion dollar price tag on what ever we choose to do. CF-18 maintenance & operation is 20 billion if you take that cost & project it 30 years in to the future (simple inflation equation). It is not to unbelievable to assume that the SHornet will equal or surpass that number. Canadian's had better get it through their heads this is going to be 25B. I was telling people that a year ago. Now I know much more & nothing has changed. As a matter of fact, the F-35 is expensive but with LRIP costs, assuming they drop, which they should if all goes stable & given the possibility gen 4 jets enter low production, Canadian's could very well be on the hook for 45B. Does my silly socialist Canada wants jets or not? And to think it is a national pastime to make fun of Americans based on their lack of knowledge on the outside world yet we think we can just nanny state everything, kill the military & send the Canadian fire department to peace keep. Hypocritical we are!

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2012, 22:49
by neurotech
Operational costs without a SLEP is more than with an effective SLEP.

In the USAF, there are crew who can work on both F-16s and F-15s, and pilots who fly both jets. In the US Navy, traditionally the CAG flew more than one aircraft type, and some could fly every jet off the deck. With F/A-18C/D/E/F jets on a carrier, there is even more commonality. Most seasoned crew have worked on all F/A-18 variants, and will work on F-35Cs once VFA-101 becomes fully operational. There is NO major reason why dual training is not an option for Canada. Somebody ask Billie Flynn if he can fly a F/A-18 and a F-35 on the same day :D

In practical terms, the USN EA-18Gs are somewhat likely to make a land-based deployment, so that would give CF-18Fs the possibility of shared logistics and even common ground crew. Cross training for mixed operations is a major part of NATO training.

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2012, 17:50
by spazsinbad
Big plans, poor planning undermining Defence procurement - iPolitics.ca 19 Dec 2012

http://maritimesecurity.asia/free-2/pro ... scription/

"...The fighter jets
That money will end up coming out of operation and sustainment budgets, says Perry, “so all this stuff in the F-35 report about $36 billion in operating, those are the dollars that have been cut over the last two budget cycles.”

Which could be a problem.

We know budget 2012 cut 7.4 per cent of DND’s operating budget, but we don’t know how that will get split among the three branches of the Forces. The department does not release the exact details for each, but the Air Force will see its fair share of cuts.

And the funds that are currently allocated for the Air Force will be coming down in the next fiscal year.

Earlier this month Army head Lt-Gen. Peter Devlin told the Senate defence committee that his service’s budget has been “reduced by 22 per cent.” It’s not known how much the Air Force budget will be reduced, but if it were cut similarly, that would mean a “pretty significant cut to our yearly flying rate,” Perry says.

“That means there’s less money to operate the CF-18s, there’s less money to operate each of the fleets, and whenever the fighter gets replaced, there’s less operations money to keep whatever comes next going,” says Perry.

He points to the 42-year projected lifetime the government has now adopted after the release of the recent KPMG independent audit on the cost of ownership for a fleet of 65 F-35 fighter jets. The sustainment costs within that have, along with overall budget slashing, already been cut back in the last two years.

The future
Due to all this, Lagassé wrote in his CDFAI paper, there are two consequences that will “necessarily flow from this state of affairs: the [Canadian Forces] will either acquire less capable equipment than they had hoped, or they will be forced to make due (sic) with fewer platforms than expected.”...

Heaps more at the jump but not about the F-35 specifically.

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2012, 20:45
by hb_pencil
neurotech wrote:Operational costs without a SLEP is more than with an effective SLEP.

In the USAF, there are crew who can work on both F-16s and F-15s, and pilots who fly both jets. In the US Navy, traditionally the CAG flew more than one aircraft type, and some could fly every jet off the deck. With F/A-18C/D/E/F jets on a carrier, there is even more commonality. Most seasoned crew have worked on all F/A-18 variants, and will work on F-35Cs once VFA-101 becomes fully operational. There is NO major reason why dual training is not an option for Canada. Somebody ask Billie Flynn if he can fly a F/A-18 and a F-35 on the same day :D


Billie Flynn is a test pilot, and CAGs have what, 20 years of flight experience? Its a bit different when you're talking about a large number of enlisted techs. Our maintenance technicians are overloaded as is, cross training for two different aircraft actually seems a bit much given the strains of our current system and the future funding envelope. Moreover there is greater impetus to cut operational budgets in the future. Having two systems won't make it cheaper, it will just dilute our ability to actually carry out the missions called for in the CFDS.

In the past the Department of National Defence found a dual fleet not worth the extra expense, and initial examinations into this around 2006 reaffirmed that view. Given the RCAF's funding analysis has been validated by KPMG, it suggests that the fundamentals of the recommendation remain. Stating "it will be cheaper" doesn't really follow the evidence or their research. And having two different fleets doesn't really add anything for our defence needs. IF the F-35's high availability KPPs are reached then it really reduces the need for a second aircraft.

neurotech wrote:In practical terms, the USN EA-18Gs are somewhat likely to make a land-based deployment, so that would give CF-18Fs the possibility of shared logistics and even common ground crew. Cross training for mixed operations is a major part of NATO training.


Two partners (the Navy and the RAAF) for the F/A-18E/F versus the cross training possibilities with seven different NATO partners and two other allied nations with the F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2012, 22:02
by neurotech
Test pilots usually come from 2-3 fleet tours, so less than 10 years experience in the USN/USAF etc. Same deal for Navy F-16 pilots, 2-3 tours into their career. Civilian test pilots can have as little as 2-4 years post-college flight training, and still have 2+ primary aircraft depending on who they fly for.

I'm not sure I trust KPMG analysts, actually. It's a way to offload political responsibility.

I didn't say operating two types is cheaper than one. I suggested that its time to consider the CF-18s age and serviceability, start to offset the cost of a $80m F/A-18F with a 2-3 year delivery time frame. The F-35 wont be delivered FRP to the RCAF until FY2020 or beyond? Going from a CF-18A to a CF-18F as a maintainer isn't that difficult at all. New F/A-18Fs are easier and simpler to maintain than the F/A-18A/B/C/Ds, not to mention they are newer... so less maintenance required. It is also likely that the F/A-18F will be cheaper than the F-35 to fly as a CPFH comparison. It's like 70-80% of a F-35 from what I've seen.

NATO crews sometimes maintain completely different jets than they normally work on.
e.g F-16 crews working on French Rafale jets
This is part of NATO interoperability, being able to service allies jets that aren't normally operated by your unit or AF.

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2012, 22:33
by hb_pencil
neurotech wrote:Test pilots usually come from 2-3 fleet tours, so less than 10 years experience in the USN/USAF etc. Same deal for Navy F-16 pilots, 2-3 tours into their career. Civilian test pilots can have as little as 2-4 years post-college flight training, and still have 2+ primary aircraft depending on who they fly for.


And none of that is really relevant to our maintainers situation.


neurotech wrote:I'm not sure I trust KPMG analysts, actually. It's a way to offload political responsibility.


It wasn't just KPMG; DND undertook a separate analysis called the yearly report, which brought together the KPMG report and new data out of the United States. So the cost figures have been assessed through a number of different outlets.


neurotech wrote:I didn't say operating two types is cheaper than one. I suggested that its time to consider the CF-18s age and serviceability, start to offset the cost of a $80m F/A-18F with a 2-3 year delivery time frame. The F-35 wont be delivered FRP to the RCAF until FY2020 or beyond? Going from a CF-18A to a CF-18F as a maintainer isn't that difficult at all. New F/A-18Fs are easier and simpler to maintain than the F/A-18A/B/C/Ds, not to mention they are newer... so less maintenance required. It is also likely that the F/A-18F will be cheaper than the F-35 to fly as a CPFH comparison. It's like 70-80% of a F-35 from what I've seen.



To suggest that the RCAF and DND has not been monitoring its fleet serviceability is wrong. DND has been doing that very carefully since ECP 583 in 2000. The CF-18s are wired with strain gauges and assessed for specific loads, and usages per flight. We generally don't fly with centerline tanks or do touch and goes or other high stress activities. They are extremely well managed and the RCAF can keep them flying well after 2020. Moreover procurement accounts in the next five years are going to take a hit through cutbacks and the ramp up for the national ship building program.

You're basically suggesting we spend $4+ billion dollars on a capability that we can manage without in the short term, and is redundant in the long term.

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 00:23
by pushoksti
neurotech wrote: Going from a CF-18A to a CF-18F as a maintainer isn't that difficult at all. New F/A-18Fs are easier and simpler to maintain than the F/A-18A/B/C/Ds,


You know this how? I've poked around the Shornets last time we hosted them for Maple Flag. From an Engine/ECS/Fuel standpoint they are COMPLETELY different. It would take months to get retrained on them and years to get your maintenance release on the system. Its not even worth it considering the 80's/90's era tech. I'd rather learn a completely new, technologically up to date aircraft and system than waste my time relearning things from the 20th century. I'm not the only one that thinks this way, there are dozens of techs who would release if the F35 is not procured.

NATO crews sometimes maintain completely different jets than they normally work on.


I'm going to call bullshit on this one. During OP Libeccio there were Eurofighters stationed next to us. No way I would go work on an aircraft I'm not qualified on, nor would we let them help us. This isn't a car, you have to worry about things like airworthiness and security regardless of how old your aircraft is.

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 00:35
by neurotech
hb_pencil wrote:To suggest that the RCAF and DND has not been monitoring its fleet serviceability is wrong. DND has been doing that very carefully since ECP 583 in 2000. The CF-18s are wired with strain gauges and assessed for specific loads, and usages per flight. We generally don't fly with centerline tanks or do touch and goes or other high stress activities. They are extremely well managed and the RCAF can keep them flying well after 2020. Moreover procurement accounts in the next five years are going to take a hit through cutbacks and the ramp up for the national ship building program.

You're basically suggesting we spend $4+ billion dollars on a capability that we can manage without in the short term, and is redundant in the long term.

Strain gauges for monitoring isn't a solution to fleet wear. I'm not saying the maintainers are not doing their jobs, I'm saying that without SELP or increased maintenance expenditure, all 65 jets won't stay operational past much 2020. F/A-18s are fighter jets, not trainers, and they are expected to pull 7Gs during dogfight practice. This is still a high stress condition for a jet fighter.

12 F/A-18Fs would cost about $2-2.5B, for purchase and training and support, for 10 years. 24 F/A-18Fs would be $4-$4.5B. Offset that against the cost of the CF-18 maintenance and support, its more like $1-2B additional expenditure for 24 jets, and that is mainly for purchase and support equipment costs anyway.

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 01:29
by neurotech
pushoksti wrote:
neurotech wrote: Going from a CF-18A to a CF-18F as a maintainer isn't that difficult at all. New F/A-18Fs are easier and simpler to maintain than the F/A-18A/B/C/Ds,


You know this how? I've poked around the Shornets last time we hosted them for Maple Flag. From an Engine/ECS/Fuel standpoint they are COMPLETELY different. It would take months to get retrained on them and years to get your maintenance release on the system. Its not even worth it considering the 80's/90's era tech. I'd rather learn a completely new, technologically up to date aircraft and system than waste my time relearning things from the 20th century. I'm not the only one that thinks this way, there are dozens of techs who would release if the F35 is not procured.

VFA-106 & VFA-122 have them side-by-side in FRS, and also in test squadrons, and sometimes share personnel. I wasn't on the maintenance side, but I was around the jets long enough to know that its easier to go between the two, than say between F-16s and F/A-18s...

Also, Are you referring to CF-18A+ or F/A-18C? because there are significant differences in Engine/FCS/Fuel system.

pushoksti wrote:
NATO crews sometimes maintain completely different jets than they normally work on.


I'm going to call bullshit on this one. During OP Libeccio there were Eurofighters stationed next to us. No way I would go work on an aircraft I'm not qualified on, nor would we let them help us. This isn't a car, you have to worry about things like airworthiness and security regardless of how old your aircraft is.

We're talking about cross-training, not "perform unassisted maintenance on unfamiliar aircraft". What do you think happens to a F/A-18 at Kandahar AB when its diverted from its carrier? The jet doesn't sit on the runway waiting... the pilot and available maintenance personnel safety the jet, and get then going with a combination of squadron/wing maintenance (on arrival) and NATO maintainers.

Where you at NAS Sigonella or Aviano AFB?

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 01:37
by madrat
neurotech, you're not arguing from a standpoint of credibility. Best to stop now.

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 01:45
by neurotech
madrat wrote:neurotech, you're not arguing from a standpoint of credibility. Best to stop now.

Fine.. although I'm arguing from the point of view of somebody who saw the RAAF (up and down the chain of command) laugh at the idea of buying Super Hornets and then bought them. And guess what? They could very well be buying more of them.

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 02:30
by pushoksti
neurotech wrote:
Also, Are you referring to CF-18A+ or F/A-18C? because there are significant differences in Engine/FCS/Fuel system.


Well considering we are talking about Canadian aircraft then it'd be the A/B models.

Where you at NAS Sigonella or Aviano AFB?


Trapani/Birgi.

What do you think happens to a F/A-18 at Kandahar AB when its diverted from its carrier? The jet doesn't sit on the runway waiting... the pilot and available maintenance personnel safety the jet, and get then going with a combination of squadron/wing maintenance (on arrival) and NATO maintainers.


NATO or US maintainers? I know for a fact that we've never let our allied partners touch our fighters in the last decade for any reason at all. The US probably has different rules for cross-maintenance because they have so many fleets.

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 05:41
by neurotech
pushoksti wrote:
Where you at NAS Sigonella or Aviano AFB?


Trapani/Birgi.

The reason I was curious was that they had a detachment of VAQ-132 EA-18s from Aviano AFB, and they flew with various NATO forces over Libya, instead of the "usual" carrier based F/A-18s. Before the deployment, they made a big deal about interoperability when not operating as part of a carrier air wing. While I'm almost certain that no non-VAQ personnel were involved in maintenance of a very sensitive EA jet at Aviano AB, they did plan for contingency of diverting to other bases.
pushoksti wrote:
What do you think happens to a F/A-18 at Kandahar AB when its diverted from its carrier? The jet doesn't sit on the runway waiting... the pilot and available maintenance personnel safety the jet, and get then going with a combination of squadron/wing maintenance (on arrival) and NATO maintainers.


NATO or US maintainers? I know for a fact that we've never let our allied partners touch our fighters in the last decade for any reason at all. The US probably has different rules for cross-maintenance because they have so many fleets.

According to reports, the ground personnel responding to diverts were both US and Non-US NATO personnel. There was a time when Kandahar AB didn't have proper ground support for F/A-18s which can cause difficulties. It may be different in Canada, but the procedure we were briefed on, is that when operating outside normal basing, including diverts to civilian and NATO or other allied facilities, the pilot stays with the jet until US ground team arrives, and the pilot verifies the jet is "safe", further repair and maintenance, if needed, is decided by squadron and wing command. The pilot is ultimately responsible for the jet.

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 19:33
by arrow-nautics
If the Eurofighter is the only somewhat advanced option for Canada then it'd likely have to be the Typhoon. The notion of the Rafale is nice but I doubt the Rafale beats the Typhoon price. BAE is still sore for losing out on the India deal & I suspect BAE will try at all costs to beat Rafale if we come calling. I'd love the Gripen because Canada could provide the US & NATO with an interesting extra option given their front line deployment advantage but they are financially more out of reach than the F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 20:53
by XanderCrews
arrow-nautics wrote: The notion of the Rafale is nice but I doubt the Rafale beats the Typhoon price.


If by "beats" you mean the Eurofighter "wins" because it has the much bigger number on the price tag, then you are right. :wink: In that measure the Eurofighter is unbeatable in price, save the F-22.

However if the object (like golf,) is to have the lower number, then the Rafale beats the Typhoon.

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 21:14
by neurotech
arrow-nautics wrote:If the Eurofighter is the only somewhat advanced option for Canada then it'd likely have to be the Typhoon. The notion of the Rafale is nice but I doubt the Rafale beats the Typhoon price. BAE is still sore for losing out on the India deal & I suspect BAE will try at all costs to beat Rafale if we come calling. I'd love the Gripen because Canada could provide the US & NATO with an interesting extra option given their front line deployment advantage but they are financially more out of reach than the F-35

The Rafale is a nice jet, but not a cheap jet to buy or operate. The JSF is the #1 jet, followed by the F/A-18F because of its mature A/G support and mature AESA radar. The Rafale comes in at #3. My biggest concern about the Gripen NG is that it could end up a "tick the box" feature list, and still fall short on capability. I do like the idea of a real 5th gen LWF but some intelligent trade-offs both technically and politically (LockMart licensing etc. and possibility of reducing F-35 buy) would have to be made.

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 21:41
by arrow-nautics
Yunno neurotech, the more I learn about this, the more I'm stumped overall. Welcome to jets lol. Welcome to the business & 1 million other things to consider. Even though I'm lost I still have a far far greater grasp on the consequences of what this county does. Not buying the F-35 could be the best move or biggest mistake Canada has ever made on this ultra important aspect of defense. It's disgusting that the media doesn't do anything here. It's OK for the CBC's Fifth Estate to dump on the F-35, but at least explain it better. What, we can't do a part 2 like Frontline? No 2 hour documentaries? `Battle of the X-Planes` was 2 hours! Frontline will tell you the truth, at least give the F-35 its dues. Why is a 2 hour show important? It's only 40 billion. Sigh. I'm ashamed. I'm an RCAF military brat. I'm embarrassed by this. For me, not having a sovereign airspace equates Quebec separation in my feeling of being Canadian. If we can't even take care of our airspace, than maybe we should just plant the Star Spangled Banner here.

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 23:15
by XanderCrews
arrow-nautics wrote: I'm embarrassed by this. For me, not having a sovereign airspace equates Quebec separation in my feeling of being Canadian. If we can't even take care of our airspace, than maybe we should just plant the Star Spangled Banner here.


Thats probably the only way you are going to have an air force in the future.

"Canada are you conflicted on the purchase of a paltry 65 F-35s? Thats ok, we are only buying 1700 for our air force, decisions are hard, you know? With a number like 65 you gotta be sure. Tell ya what sport, when you become the United States, we will have F-35s brought up there for ya-- our treat, and we can all have beers and tell jokes about how you used to be CANADA for crying out loud, but somewhere in there nationhood just got too tough, well not tough, just pricey. These advanced fighters are not for everyone you know, only responsible grown ups should have these."

All tongue in cheek -- You seem to be one of the Canadians that cares about defense/national identity, and good onto you. I just could not resist after that flag comment.

There seem to be canadians that really care about the issue, they kind of understand that nagging need to have a military. A lot of others are fine without it, knowing that 90 percent of your population borders the worlds only super power.
...probably just a coincidence that you don't need a military.

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 23:34
by neurotech
arrow-nautics wrote:Yunno neurotech, the more I learn about this, the more I'm stumped overall. Welcome to jets lol. Welcome to the business & 1 million other things to consider. Even though I'm lost I still have a far far greater grasp on the consequences of what this county does. Not buying the F-35 could be the best move or biggest mistake Canada has ever made on this ultra important aspect of defense. It's disgusting that the media doesn't do anything here. It's OK for the CBC's Fifth Estate to dump on the F-35, but at least explain it better. What, we can't do a part 2 like Frontline? No 2 hour documentaries? `Battle of the X-Planes` was 2 hours! Frontline will tell you the truth, at least give the F-35 its dues. Why is a 2 hour show important? It's only 40 billion.

Love battle of the X-Planes. I think the X-35 rightfully won the competition. There were too many variables with the X-32 design, and pending changes. Although, Lockheed's accounting issues should have been a warning for the Pentagon.
arrow-nautics wrote:Sigh. I'm ashamed. I'm an RCAF military brat. I'm embarrassed by this. For me, not having a sovereign airspace equates Quebec separation in my feeling of being Canadian. If we can't even take care of our airspace, than maybe we should just plant the Star Spangled Banner here.

They have shared NATO air sovereignty patrols in Europe. With Canada's close allied status with the US, NORAD share patrols. In certain situations, CF-18s have patrolled US airspace, including Alaska. I do agree that Canada should be able to do its own patrols, as it is a G-8 country, not some fledgling state.

I'm surprised the DoD doesn't just say something like 2x F-35A LRIP jets, and 2xF/A-18F jets on "2 years interest free" terms, return the ones you don't want.

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2012, 23:41
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:
I'm surprised the DoD doesn't just say something like 2x F-35A LRIP jets, and 2xF/A-18F jets on "2 years interest free" terms, return the ones you don't want.


That would be awesome!

... I don't know if Boeing would want that. :wink: I mean could you imagine if you had pilots who had flown both, or even a variety of other aircraft publicly picking the F-35? (Bill Sweetman assures me this has never happened as every interviewed pilot is a lockheed spokesperson, unless they pick an aircraft other than the F-35 in which case they are honest trustworthy voices of reason and justice)

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 00:01
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:
neurotech wrote:
I'm surprised the DoD doesn't just say something like 2x F-35A LRIP jets, and 2xF/A-18F jets on "2 years interest free" terms, return the ones you don't want.


That would be awesome!

... I don't know if Boeing would want that. :wink: I mean could you imagine if you had pilots who had flown both, or even a variety of other aircraft publicly picking the F-35? (Bill Sweetman assures me this has never happened as every interviewed pilot is a lockheed spokesperson, unless they pick an aircraft other than the F-35 in which case they are honest trustworthy voices of reason and justice)

The Navy F-35C pilots are F/A-18 qualified, and probably most of the USMC F-35B pilots are as well. Col. Art Tomassetti comes to mind, as he's actually flown F/A-18Fs as a test pilot.
Aircraft Flown: T-34C, T-2C, TA-4, AV-8B, T-38, F-16, F/A-18A-F, VAAC Harrier, EA-6B, Lear 24, T-45, X-35A/B/C, Tornado GR1, F-4G, F-15, T-7, MIG-21, U-21F, P-3C, NU-1B, U-6A, AT-6, C-12A, DHC2, KC-130J, B-25, TH-6B, OH-58, Gazelle
The bio is slightly inaccurate as he has flown the F-35 too :D

The argument of F-35 vs F/A-18E/F is about schedule of updates, delivery time, and extended capability (EA-18s etc). Bill Sweetman is wrong, cost isn't really a driving factor between the jets, its only really LRIP "sticker shock" and people trying to claim otherwise. The big reason why the USMC don't want F/A-18E/F jets is they cannot handle STOVL operations like the AV-8B and F-35B can and the Marines don't want to reduce their F-35B buy. That and they have enough F/A-18A/B/C/Ds from the Navy to fly :D The Navy F/A-18E/F jets are freeing up F/A-18Cs for the Marines.

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 00:06
by luke_sandoz

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 00:44
by neurotech
luke_sandoz wrote:65 Test Pilots . . .

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_ ... ry_style=3

Actually its 67 F-35 pilots total, but I'm not sure how many of them have flown more than 2 tactical aircraft (non-Trainers) before the F-35.

The Marine pilots, probably most of them have flown the F/A-18, AV-8B and F-35. For the F-16, F/A-18 & F-35, At least two that I can think of. Billie Flynn would be included.

Lt. Col. Matt Taylor, USMC is not a Harrier pilot, but he makes some interesting and somewhat favorable comments about the F/A-18E/F and he flew F/A-18Cs before the F-35.
http://www.ausn.org/NewsPublications/Ma ... -work.aspx

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 00:54
by spazsinbad
'neurotech' thanks. Over the years that magazine has had some good articles. There are two earlier references to this article in regard to 'stealth coating' and HMDS:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... lor#222083
&
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... lor#222078
_______________

ADDITION: My favourite pilot quote (commercial paid for by Guvmnt) :D

"...Lt. Col. Taylor: What lights me up is the integrated fashion of the mission systems combined with the performance of the individual sensors. In the F/A-18, and in any airplane, there are times when you struggle to have good situational awareness. That’s everything to a tactical pilot. I think this airplane is going to be a leap ahead in how well it keeps the pilot aware of what is going on around him. Awareness is what enables the pilot to stop worrying about trying to get information and allows him to think tactically...."

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 01:19
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
neurotech wrote:
I'm surprised the DoD doesn't just say something like 2x F-35A LRIP jets, and 2xF/A-18F jets on "2 years interest free" terms, return the ones you don't want.


That would be awesome!

... I don't know if Boeing would want that. :wink: I mean could you imagine if you had pilots who had flown both, or even a variety of other aircraft publicly picking the F-35? (Bill Sweetman assures me this has never happened as every interviewed pilot is a lockheed spokesperson, unless they pick an aircraft other than the F-35 in which case they are honest trustworthy voices of reason and justice)

The Navy F-35C pilots are F/A-18 qualified, and probably most of the USMC F-35B pilots are as well. Col. Art Tomassetti comes to mind, as he's actually flown F/A-18Fs as a test pilot.
Aircraft Flown: T-34C, T-2C, TA-4, AV-8B, T-38, F-16, F/A-18A-F, VAAC Harrier, EA-6B, Lear 24, T-45, X-35A/B/C, Tornado GR1, F-4G, F-15, T-7, MIG-21, U-21F, P-3C, NU-1B, U-6A, AT-6, C-12A, DHC2, KC-130J, B-25, TH-6B, OH-58, Gazelle
The bio is slightly inaccurate as he has flown the F-35 too :D



Thats the joke. :lol:

We have pilots screaming from the rafters about the F-35 and they are dismissed, as paid spokespeople

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 01:35
by arrow-nautics
I guess I'm furious at those who think we don't need an airforce. IMO; regardless of any political belief, this is paramount of importance. Canadian dispatches prove the CF-18's were very involved in north USA airspace patrol on Sept 11, 01. Maybe call it a fluke day for Canada that the fleet was (on that day) more available than some American jets on that dreaded day. Canada made it far easier for our brothers to patrol the situation. Some people I've talked to take no pride in that (as_____s). I feel proud about this fact. After all the US has done for us that we could be there for them at that dark time. A lot of people will say "never again" in this country about that but do not want jets now. It is embarrassing.

STUPID

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 04:10
by neurotech
arrow-nautics wrote:I guess I'm furious at those who think we don't need an airforce. IMO; regardless of any political belief, this is paramount of importance. Canadian dispatches prove the CF-18's were very involved in north USA airspace patrol on Sept 11, 01. Maybe call it a fluke day for Canada that the fleet was (on that day) more available than some American jets on that dreaded day. Canada made it far easier for our brothers to patrol the situation. Some people I've talked to take no pride in that (as_____s). I feel proud about this fact. After all the US has done for us that we could be there for them at that dark time. A lot of people will say "never again" in this country about that but do not want jets now. It is embarrassing.

STUPID

There is a interview (part of Jetstream) with an RCAF pilot, Maj. Mike "Flayling" Ayling, who flew a CF-18 on 9/11, and he sure didn't say "Why are we up here?", They knew what their mission was, and they did their duty to defend Canadian airspace.

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 10:01
by maus92
neurotech wrote:
arrow-nautics wrote:I guess I'm furious at those who think we don't need an airforce. IMO; regardless of any political belief, this is paramount of importance. Canadian dispatches prove the CF-18's were very involved in north USA airspace patrol on Sept 11, 01. Maybe call it a fluke day for Canada that the fleet was (on that day) more available than some American jets on that dreaded day. Canada made it far easier for our brothers to patrol the situation. Some people I've talked to take no pride in that (as_____s). I feel proud about this fact. After all the US has done for us that we could be there for them at that dark time. A lot of people will say "never again" in this country about that but do not want jets now. It is embarrassing.

STUPID

There is a interview (part of Jetstream) with an RCAF pilot, Maj. Mike "Flayling" Ayling, who flew a CF-18 on 9/11, and he sure didn't say "Why are we up here?", They knew what their mission was, and they did their duty to defend Canadian airspace.


Plus most westbound transatlantic commercial flights were diverted to Canadian airports - somebody had to monitor those aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 14:55
by arrow-nautics
OMG; This is really stupid & childish. Really? Unbelievable that beauty would be the latest media attack on the jet.

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Forg ... story.html

:doh:

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 18:00
by spazsinbad
At least this phrase was at the end: "...For our air force to yearn for such an ugly plane, it must be really, really good." Perhaps the whole article was an attempt at tongue in cheek humour?

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 18:11
by borntoholdout
arrow-nautics wrote:OMG; This is really stupid & childish. Really? Unbelievable that beauty would be the latest media attack on the jet.

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Forg ... story.html

:doh:


Thanks. I needed that. Haven't laughed that hard in a long time. :lmao:

Edited to add...

This guy has some good points if your building airshow queens. In a war machine form is function. This is why many think the A-10 is beautiful. You don't want a pretty butterfly flying over your enemy.

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 18:37
by hb_pencil
I think it was spaz.... actually I think it was written by someone who has a bit of aviation knowledge. He cites 7 different aircraft, and double ugly is a pretty obscure name for the F-4.

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 22:24
by spazsinbad
Weird CanUk Journos again? Was the F-35 even in the OMAN fighter competition?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-1 ... order.html

"...The Typhoon purchase was not open to competition..."

Eurofighter beats out F-35 for $4.1-billion Oman contract [I guess Canadians like beating those not even in the competition? Wunnerful] :D

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/ge ... ract-89242

"...The deal makes the Gulf nation the seventh country to use the Eurofighter Typhoon jet, which is built by a consortium of European aerospace companies and is a competitor to the F-35 joint strike fighter currently embroiled in purchasing controversy here in Canada...."

Canada must really be a 'magical kingdom'. A good time of the year for it I guess? Plenty of snow in the Great White Upland? :D Canadian Journos like to snow the Canuks eh. Perhaps it is all the fault of the HEADline 'riter' "MaxHEADroom". :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... pegMan.jpg

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 22:39
by m
spazsinbad wrote:Weird CanUk Journos again? Was the F-35 even in the OMAN fighter competition?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-1 ... order.html

"...The Typhoon purchase was not open to competition..."

Eurofighter beats out F-35 for $4.1-billion Oman contract [I guess Canadians like beating those not even in the competition? Wunnerful] :D

http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/ge ... ract-89242

"...The deal makes the Gulf nation the seventh country to use the Eurofighter Typhoon jet, which is built by a consortium of European aerospace companies and is a competitor to the F-35 joint strike fighter currently embroiled in purchasing controversy here in Canada...."

Canada must really be a 'magical kingdom'. A good time of the year for it I guess? Plenty of snow in the Great White Upland? :D Canadian Journos like to snow the Canuks eh. Perhaps it is all the fault of the HEADline 'riter' "MaxHEADroom". :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... pegMan.jpg


Suppose these 12 Typhoons for Oman are the jets already spoken for some years?
These jets were supposed to be for the RAF, as far as I know.
In stead of 107 Typhoons, the RAF eventually will have 95 Typhoons.
Not much of a succes, the production number will stay the same.

Quite a deal: $341.6 million (all in) per Typhoon

Allthough the Bloomberg article mentions a $1 billion deal. In that case: $83 million per Typhoon. This seems quite impossible when compared with the offer to the Swiss.

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 23:20
by spazsinbad
A less interesting story without any F-35s mentioned except in relation to South Korea but anyway...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ks-380479/

"...The Typhoon is also in contention against the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle and Lockheed Martin F-35 in South Korea's F-X III competition for 60 aircraft...."

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2012, 15:07
by popcorn
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/When+ ... story.html

When compared to the alternatives, the F-35 is still the best option

By Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News December 17, 2012

CAIRO — The F-35 fighter jet is not dead.

Fevered reports to the contrary, there is every chance that when a review of the options is probably completed by Public Works Canada by next fall, the F-35 stealth fighter may still be at the top of the shopping list...

Although already nearly 15 years old, Boeing’s fourth generation F-18 Super Hornet is the only serious rival to Lockheed Martin’s fifth generation F-35 Lightning. But as argued by the National Post’s John Ivison, the clear leader on the F-35 story for months, the Super Hornet has far less of a cost advantage than the JSF’s critics have led the public to believe. In fact if Canada were to buy the two-seat electronic warfare variant of the Super Hornet or a mix of that model and the attack version, it might not be cheaper at all...


Also lost in the hullabaloo over life cycle costs was that number crunching by KPMG that was presented to Parliament last week indicated that cost estimates prepared several years ago by National Defence were accurate.

If opponents of the F-35 had examined the cost of the alternatives — as they should have and as the government should have — they would have long ago realized that there are no “cheap” options. The four other frequently mentioned contenders have list prices equal to or greater than the F-35 — and none of them is classified as a “stealth” aircraft. According the U.S. Department of Defense, Boeing’s Super Hornet costs $88 million per aircraft, which is identical to KPMG’s estimate for a F-35. According to Australian reports, the latest batch of Super Hornets that Canberra may buy will cost more than $100 million each.

Britain’s Ministry of Defence lists the Eurofighter Typhoon at $115 million per aircraft. France’s Rafale costs from $80 to $120 million each depending on the model. Sweden’s Gripen E was just purchased by the Swiss air force for $100 million per plane.

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2012, 15:54
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:A less interesting story without any F-35s mentioned except in relation to South Korea but anyway...

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ks-380479/

"...The Typhoon is also in contention against the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle and Lockheed Martin F-35 in South Korea's F-X III competition for 60 aircraft...."


Where is that troll who fancies himself the expert in the Korean competition when you need him?

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 08:43
by spazsinbad
CC-150 Polaris Tankers? Who knew [I think I have given up caring about the Canadian Misinformation Campaign].... [ http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/equ ... ex-eng.asp ]

Canadian Tankers and the F-35 Some time this century but it may be the last one? I give up on SLDinfo also. What INFO / WHEN?

http://www.sldinfo.com/canadian-tankers-and-the-f-35/

"...The Airbus A310 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) is based on the A310 and the Germans along with the Canadians have bought 6, with the Canadians having two which they designate as the CC-150 Polaris.

For the Canadians, the two CC-150 Polaris tankers allow them to deploy fighter aircraft at a distance. The aging C-130 tankers provide tactical re-fueling but overall the Canadians can not provide tanker support to either their 4 C-17s or to their projected new F-35s....

...The CC-150 aircraft have been modified with baskets for probe and drogue refueling of the CF-18s for higher altitude long range ferries. It does not currently have a boom for receptacle refueling.

The RCAF has investigated adding a boom to the CC-150 instead of adding the probe to the F-35A. It was a fraction of the cost of the fighter mod...."

Worth reading it all though but I didn't. :-( :D
______________

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRi9dsCvU1I

CF18 Hornet fighter jet Aerial refuelling mission - Canadian Forces

"Uploaded on Sep 29, 2009
Aerial refueling mission aboard a Canadian Forces CC150 Polaris MRTT aircraft. CF18s vector in for top of fuel before continuing training missions over CFB Cold Lake during EX: Maple Flag 09. CC150 Polaris are converted Airbus A310 aircraft. Thank you to 437 Squadron. Shot on Sony PMW EX-1 XDCam."

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 09:51
by hb_pencil
A couple of things to add.

First I don't think the bolded portion is an accurate portrayal of the decision making, from what I know. The reality with the CC-150 fleet was that it's not going to last past 2025 because of age (over 30 years old, the first five of which were high usage cycles with a commercial airline.) We wouldn't consider upgrading such an old airframe for five years of service. Also I don't think there is a boom system available for the 310 airframe... its only for the 330 model. I think the CC-130H(T) is out in the next five years or so. Thus the 2020~2022 IOC meant that they were less beholden to the P&D method and could consider the alternative.

Canadian Polaris are really not used for Air to Air Refueling over Canada in a systematic fashion; there are only two of them and they can't really provide coverage unless there is advanced warning of an upcoming exercise. ITs more likely that an US KC-10 or -135 provides gas for NORAD operations. Where the CC-150 was valuable was for foreign deployments, particularly getting aircraft into the area. However we did without that capability for the better part of 10 years, between 1997 and 2008. Losing the refueling capability would certainly reduce the flexibility for the Canadian Forces, but we've done without it before for a longer period of time.

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 10:45
by spazsinbad
Thanks for clarification 'hb_pencil'. SLDinfo have a habit of making inflated claims with no dates. :D Perhaps the Canuks can buy a couple of useful new MRTTs in their 'fantasy future' - with or without various new fighters?

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 11:14
by hb_pencil
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for clarification 'hb_pencil'. SLDinfo have a habit of making inflated claims with no dates. :D Perhaps the Canuks can buy a couple of useful new MRTTs in their 'fantasy future' - with or without various new fighters?


Well I think that is a more likely scenario and/or if we go the british route and contract out the service provision. There are four possible options here: we purchase the aircraft, operate it ourselves, or have a contractor which we provide an aircraft or have them purchase it and provide the service. However the A310s are used for a lot of different services other than refueling, so its possible we might just buy and purchase it ourselves.

It should be an interesting competition when it occurs. Will the RCAF go with the KC-46, which roughly corresponds to the CC-150 polaris, or opt for the larger A330 MRTT. Its sort of rerun of the US KC-XX competition.

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 19:02
by neurotech
hb_pencil wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for clarification 'hb_pencil'. SLDinfo have a habit of making inflated claims with no dates. :D Perhaps the Canuks can buy a couple of useful new MRTTs in their 'fantasy future' - with or without various new fighters?


Well I think that is a more likely scenario and/or if we go the british route and contract out the service provision. There are four possible options here: we purchase the aircraft, operate it ourselves, or have a contractor which we provide an aircraft or have them purchase it and provide the service. However the A310s are used for a lot of different services other than refueling, so its possible we might just buy and purchase it ourselves.

It should be an interesting competition when it occurs. Will the RCAF go with the KC-46, which roughly corresponds to the CC-150 polaris, or opt for the larger A330 MRTT. Its sort of rerun of the US KC-XX competition.

Remember that the US-based contractors are flying modified civilian jets, which do not have boom refueling, nor could it easily fitted.

The A330 MMRT can be fitted with a boom and is fitted with a boom for the RAAF, RSAF and UAE versions. The UK version flown by contractors doesn't carry the boom, but I'm fairly certain this is only because the RAF ordered them without a boom.

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 19:24
by spazsinbad
Airbus Military A330 MRTT FSTA for UK RAF awarded certification Madrid, 14 September 2011

http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/news/pr ... _fsta.html

"Airbus Military has obtained military and civil certification for the Future Strategic Transport Aircraft (FSTA) version of the A330 MRTT for the Royal Air Force of the United Kingdom. This paves the way for first delivery of the aircraft to the RAF in the coming weeks.

The approval was granted by Spanish military certification authority Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Aerospacial (INTA). It follows the civil certification of the FSTA which was awarded by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in July. Together these certifications cover the specific configuration of the UK version of the MRTT and lay the ground for its eventual operation on both the military and civil registers, as currently envisaged by the RAF. It will be known in RAF service as “Voyager”.

The initial configuration which will enter service, and which is covered by the certification, is the two-point aircraft with hose-and-drogue refuelling pods under each wing. The three-point configuration, which also includes a centreline Fuselage Refuelling Unit (FRU) [makes 3 hose/drogue refuel points] will be certified at a later date as contracted.

“It is deeply satisfying to see this FSTA variant of the A330 MRTT receive its certification as per schedule,” said Airbus Military Senior VP Engineering Miguel Angel Morell. “I would like to thank everyone involved in the FSTA programme for their work and look forward to seeing the aircraft being delivered soon.”...

All that is relevant to UK above.

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 20:27
by SpudmanWP
neurotech wrote:Remember that the US-based contractors are flying modified civilian jets, which do not have boom refueling, nor could it easily fitted.
A quick Google check shows at least one civilian contractor with boom capability

http://www.globalairtankerservice.com/kdc10.html

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kdc_10/

Image

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 21:38
by neurotech
SpudmanWP wrote:
neurotech wrote:Remember that the US-based contractors are flying modified civilian jets, which do not have boom refueling, nor could it easily fitted.
A quick Google check shows at least one civilian contractor with boom capability

http://www.globalairtankerservice.com/kdc10.html

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kdc_10/

I guess I was mistaken. I thought Omega Air had the only major contract, and they had KDC-10s (Converted civilian DC-10s) and K-707s, neither of which have booms. Omega has the main Navy contract, and some USAF work also (rarely, because F-5s are the only probe equipped USAF jet suitable for a KDC-10 or K-707) The Navy don't operate KC-10s or KC-135s themselves.

It looks like Global Airtanker Service have different jets for their services, which are fitted with booms. GAS is a joint venture between Evergreen and Omega Air.

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2012, 22:54
by spazsinbad
Another example of Canadian Journalistic License to B/S mightily: http://www.thestar.com/business/article ... king-olive

Olive? Is that the colour of B/S in CanukLand? :D

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2012, 00:19
by pushoksti
spazsinbad wrote:Another example of Canadian Journalistic License to B/S mightily: http://www.thestar.com/business/article ... king-olive

Olive? Is that the colour of B/S in CanukLand? :D


Just when you thought journalists in Canada couldn't get any dumber.

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2012, 01:15
by southernphantom
Too much plane. The folly of the F-35 – an exercise in hubris for which Napoleon’s Russian excursions are roughly analogous – is that it was to be the first fighter plane that would accommodate the varied needs of all four branches of the U.S. Armed Forces.


I can't say that I was aware of an Army plan to procure F-35s, but what I can say is...

Surrender pronto, or we'll level Toronto!!!! :D :D :D :D

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2012, 16:03
by markottawa
Further to Mr Olive's Toronto Star piece, a letter sent to the paper but not printed:

'Re: F-35 — a case study in deficient decision-making: Olive, Dec. 28 (online)

Mr Olive unfortunately has not done his research seriously (an all-too-common fault with our major media). He writes that "Had we selected wisely, we could have used the funds saved from purchasing more modest aircraft [than the F-35] adequate to our needs to replace our antiquated helicopters, and acquire our first troop-transport capability."

In fact the current government has purchased 15 CH-47F Chinook medium-to-heavy lift helicopters; the first is scheduled for delivery in 2013. The Cyclone maritime helicopter program to replace our ancient Sea Kings has indeed been repeatedly delayed--but that, probably mistaken, contract was signed by the Liberal government in 2004. Mr Olive, for his part, seems completely unaware that eight of those aircraft are supposed to be delivered in 2013.

As for fixed-wing transports, Mr Olive could not be more wrong. The air force has had a troop-transport capability for decades. Moreover the current government, in its first term, bought four C-17 heavy jet transports--an aircraft capability Canada did not have--and 17 C-130J Hercules medium turboprops to replace the aging fleet of earlier-model Hercules. And all 21 new transports now are in service.

Mr Olive got not one fact right in the sentence quoted. Pity. By the way, both the transport contracts, and the Chinook one, were effectively sole-sourced. Sometimes that approach is the best. Especially when there are in reality no viable competitor aircraft--which, however, I would agree is not the case for the RCAF's new fighter.

Regards,

Mark Collins

References:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouve ... sp?id=3969
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Can ... ver-05223/
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Deliv ... story.html
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/equ ... ex-eng.asp
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/v2/equ ... ex-eng.asp
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Can ... ets-05739/
("What If… Potential Competitors [updated]") '

Mark
Ottawa

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2012, 16:47
by alloycowboy
Nice letter Mark! Thanks for the update on the F-35 refueling situation "hb". You know from a NATO stand point it makes sense to have both refuling systems onboard Canada's F-35's. I wonder how bad the weight penalty is?

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2012, 17:49
by spazsinbad
"Mark Collins is a prolific Ottawa blogger": http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1719

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2012, 21:10
by geogen
hb_pencil wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for clarification 'hb_pencil'. SLDinfo have a habit of making inflated claims with no dates. :D Perhaps the Canuks can buy a couple of useful new MRTTs in their 'fantasy future' - with or without various new fighters?


Well I think that is a more likely scenario and/or if we go the british route and contract out the service provision. There are four possible options here: we purchase the aircraft, operate it ourselves, or have a contractor which we provide an aircraft or have them purchase it and provide the service. However the A310s are used for a lot of different services other than refueling, so its possible we might just buy and purchase it ourselves.

It should be an interesting competition when it occurs. Will the RCAF go with the KC-46, which roughly corresponds to the CC-150 polaris, or opt for the larger A330 MRTT. Its sort of rerun of the US KC-XX competition.


Perhaps Lease 2 Italian KC-767 Tanker Transports under a 20 year or so stopgap agreement and sell off/retire Polaris? By then, decide a more overall strategically prudent and applicable RCAF force structure and requirement for Canada's future generation?

Perhaps cheaper, more flexible and more cost-effective boost in capability for a 20 year-term?

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2012, 22:04
by alloycowboy
Did any on mention this article from Ruters yet?

Ten European states agree military air tanker cooperation Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:43pm EST

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Ten European countries agreed on Monday to work together to boost their military air-to-air refueling capacity, to plug a gap in their defenses that was exposed by last year's Libyan war.

Europe's air forces have had a shortage of tanker aircraft for years. During the Libya campaign, European states relied heavily on the United States for air-to-air refueling, needed to enable fighter planes to stay in the air for longer.


More at the jump:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE8AI0YN20121119

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2012, 22:17
by neurotech
Politics aside. The A310 MMRT/A330 MMRT/KC-767 and KC-46 tankers are all good jets, and even if the jets can't be sold as tankers, selling them as a range enhanced VIP jet would still be quite possible.

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2012, 23:55
by luke_sandoz
The Polaris has to be replaced . . . Might as well get a multirole freighter/passenger hauler/refueller.

Multirole aircraft are the way to go. Which is why the F-35 is the right plane for Canada. Despite what prolific bloggers from Ottawa who write mostly excellent letters have decided.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2013, 06:13
by Conan
geogen wrote:
hb_pencil wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for clarification 'hb_pencil'. SLDinfo have a habit of making inflated claims with no dates. :D Perhaps the Canuks can buy a couple of useful new MRTTs in their 'fantasy future' - with or without various new fighters?


Well I think that is a more likely scenario and/or if we go the british route and contract out the service provision. There are four possible options here: we purchase the aircraft, operate it ourselves, or have a contractor which we provide an aircraft or have them purchase it and provide the service. However the A310s are used for a lot of different services other than refueling, so its possible we might just buy and purchase it ourselves.

It should be an interesting competition when it occurs. Will the RCAF go with the KC-46, which roughly corresponds to the CC-150 polaris, or opt for the larger A330 MRTT. Its sort of rerun of the US KC-XX competition.


Perhaps Lease 2 Italian KC-767 Tanker Transports under a 20 year or so stopgap agreement and sell off/retire Polaris? By then, decide a more overall strategically prudent and applicable RCAF force structure and requirement for Canada's future generation?

Perhaps cheaper, more flexible and more cost-effective boost in capability for a 20 year-term?


So a 20 year lease is likely to be cheaper than adding a probe to the F-35A and using their existing tankers?

On top of which has anyone seen ANY indication, ANYWHERE that the Italians are looking to offload 2 of their brand new tankers, the last two of which were only delivered just a tad over 12 months ago? I haven't...

Or a FAR better option would be to try and acquire the already manufactured KC-30A test beds for the USAF KC-X program on the cheap, that already HAVE been built and are still held by Airbus, whilst selling their A310 tankers early to defray the costs and using Omega to maintain currency until the KC-30A's are up and running. Airbus is clearly looking to do a deal on these aircraft, given they have already offered them to Australia at a discounted rate, which we've declined, because our Minister is a moron.

This way Canada would acquire 2 full, brand new tankers that can refuel a variety of aircraft including their C-17A' s and whichever fighter they end up acquiring.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... ionstories

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2013, 13:32
by bigjku
alloycowboy wrote:Did any on mention this article from Ruters yet?

Ten European states agree military air tanker cooperation Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:43pm EST

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Ten European countries agreed on Monday to work together to boost their military air-to-air refueling capacity, to plug a gap in their defenses that was exposed by last year's Libyan war.

Europe's air forces have had a shortage of tanker aircraft for years. During the Libya campaign, European states relied heavily on the United States for air-to-air refueling, needed to enable fighter planes to stay in the air for longer.


More at the jump:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE8AI0YN20121119


I am going to call this meaningless diplo speak until an actual capability is ordered. Europe spends a ton of time talking about cooperation and very little time actually building meaningful military equipment.

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2013, 14:46
by aceshigh
bigjku wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:Did any on mention this article from Ruters yet?

Ten European states agree military air tanker cooperation Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:43pm EST

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Ten European countries agreed on Monday to work together to boost their military air-to-air refueling capacity, to plug a gap in their defenses that was exposed by last year's Libyan war.

Europe's air forces have had a shortage of tanker aircraft for years. During the Libya campaign, European states relied heavily on the United States for air-to-air refueling, needed to enable fighter planes to stay in the air for longer.


More at the jump:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE8AI0YN20121119


I am going to call this meaningless diplo speak until an actual capability is ordered. Europe spends a ton of time talking about cooperation and very little time actually building meaningful military equipment.


Do you really think it is "meaningless diplo speak" when 10 European countries issue an official agreement? Are you aware that in 2008 ten NATO countries plus two partner nations acquired three Boeing C-17 strategic transport aircraft. The participants included (Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the United States) and two Partnership for Peace (PfP) nations (Finland and Sweden).

These aircraft now does a great job for the NATO coalition in Afghanistan. The aircrews are coming from the different participating Countries.

http://www.nspa.nato.int/en/organization/NAMP/home.htm

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2013, 03:13
by bigjku
aceshigh wrote:
bigjku wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:Did any on mention this article from Ruters yet?

Ten European states agree military air tanker cooperation Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:43pm EST

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Ten European countries agreed on Monday to work together to boost their military air-to-air refueling capacity, to plug a gap in their defenses that was exposed by last year's Libyan war.

Europe's air forces have had a shortage of tanker aircraft for years. During the Libya campaign, European states relied heavily on the United States for air-to-air refueling, needed to enable fighter planes to stay in the air for longer.


More at the jump:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCABRE8AI0YN20121119


I am going to call this meaningless diplo speak until an actual capability is ordered. Europe spends a ton of time talking about cooperation and very little time actually building meaningful military equipment.


Do you really think it is "meaningless diplo speak" when 10 European countries issue an official agreement? Are you aware that in 2008 ten NATO countries plus two partner nations acquired three Boeing C-17 strategic transport aircraft. The participants included (Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and the United States) and two Partnership for Peace (PfP) nations (Finland and Sweden).

These aircraft now does a great job for the NATO coalition in Afghanistan. The aircrews are coming from the different participating Countries.

http://www.nspa.nato.int/en/organization/NAMP/home.htm


As soon as there is an agreement that specifically pledges them to buy something then I will take note. I am aware that from time to time things like this actually come together. But if this was a thirty step journey to more tankers in the air this would be like step 2 or 3.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 07:37
by spazsinbad
NOW - as of - NOW: "Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute". So there. http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1728

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2013, 14:59
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:NOW - as of - NOW: "Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute". So there. http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1728


Moving up in the world?

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 15:15
by bigjku

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 16:07
by stobiewan


Just read the article. That bloke's a nob...

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 16:25
by XanderCrews


There is so much "stupid on display" in that article its almost unbelievable.

in other news-- Formula one cars have one engine?

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 16:53
by f-22lm

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 18:31
by borntoholdout
So... F1 teams can have a spare engine but Canada's air force can't have a spare F135?

This guy needs to stay off the coolaid. :D

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 20:03
by luke_sandoz
f-22lm wrote:
:lmao:


This newspaper is fertile ground for some of the funniest coverage of the F35. Great comments!

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/01/ ... n-fighter/

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 21:45
by neurotech
borntoholdout wrote:So... F1 teams can have a spare engine but Canada's air force can't have a spare F135?

This guy needs to stay off the coolaid. :D

The engines are not insanely expensive. I think in the $8-12m, it just looks bad on paper to replace an entire engine, instead of the individual modules. Swapping an entire engine probably get the jet in the air quicker though.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 21:52
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:
borntoholdout wrote:So... F1 teams can have a spare engine but Canada's air force can't have a spare F135?

This guy needs to stay off the coolaid. :D

The engines are not insanely expensive. I think in the $8-12m, it just looks bad on paper to replace an entire engine, instead of the individual modules. Swapping an entire engine probably get the jet in the air quicker though.


i just think its a bit shady to say "Why even in race car driving we have a spare engine!!"

No you don't-- You have a spare engine in a truck that needs to be installed after the car pits. He is likening that to having a twin engine aircraft? Unless a formula one driver has the operating spare engine in his lap I don't think thats even remotely close to a good analogy.

Or am I on crazy pills? Are Formula cars actual twin engined? and when one goes down midrace they are able to rely on the other one to make it to the pit?

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 22:57
by neurotech
I didn't make the race car analogy. Borntoholdout did.

My comment was based on disputing the idea that spare engines are prohibitively expensive compared to the cost of a $100m jet sitting in the hangar for days/weeks while its engine is repaired. Last time I checked, a module replacement requires the engine removed anyway.

A "spare" good engine, quite likely has been in the test cell, is good to go, and can be swapped out in a matter of hours.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2013, 23:09
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:I didn't make the race car analogy. Borntoholdout did.

My comment was based on disputing the idea that spare engines are prohibitively expensive compared to the cost of a $100m jet sitting in the hangar for days/weeks while its engine is repaired. Last time I checked, a module replacement requires the engine removed anyway.

A "spare" good engine, quite likely has been in the test cell, is good to go, and can be swapped out in a matter of hours.


No the author of the article said this:

With its single engine, the F-35 is a handicapped choice and not exactly good for a pilot’s morale when cruising above the Arctic circle. Supporters say that modern technological advances have built in such a high degree of reliability that a single engine is OK. We have been told exactly the same thing in my sport, formula car racing. Guess what, we carry a spare engine and we are operating a mere one inch above the ground!


Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology ... z2HKWBCSIn

So having a spare engine not on the vehicle is not helpful in an aircraft's case. I guess I need his definition of the word "Carry"

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 13:53
by pushoksti


Anyone catch this? "Retired general Lewis MacKenzie served in the Infantry for 36 years."

So now we have Army grunts that are qualified to give opinions on Air Force matters. Why not have Submarine Captains publish a lengthy opinion piece on Canada's next battle tank purchase. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 13:57
by madrat
Cross training was popular in the 90's.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 16:24
by stobiewan
I thought the remarks about the F117 shoot down were so crassly ill informed it was hard to keep reading without shouting.

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 17:14
by bigjku
stobiewan wrote:I thought the remarks about the F117 shoot down were so crassly ill informed it was hard to keep reading without shouting.


I feel like it almost would have been better for making the point had 1 F-117 been lost in GWI. Then people would understand that yes, stealth is not perfect but bragging about shooting down 1 aircraft out of a thousand sorties while the other 999 clobber critical targets is stupid. You lost the war.

It honestly comes across as very similar to the Iraqi information minister blathering on about having destroyed 1 tank and some shovels. That is nice but not really relevant.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2013, 00:04
by maus92
It looks like Canada is moving forward with a plan to investigate its options in the tactical fighter marketspace:

"As Ottawa rethinks a plan to purchase Lockheed-Martin F-35s, the Canadian government has contacted five companies as part of a market analysis of fighter aircraft options. In a Dec. 27 letter to Boeing, Dassault Aviation, Eurofighter, Lockheed Martin and Saab, Canada's public works and government services department said the five companies could expect to be queried in early 2013 for more detailed information regarding their respective fighter programs."

More at AvWeek ARES blog.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx? ... 1d5257681d

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 05:00
by geogen
I'm curious if SAAB will offer (or RCAF would request) a proposal for a short-term 8-10 yr LEASE option eg, for an updated C/D+ Gripen variant, in addition to any separate proposal for a Gripen NG variant acquisition? A Gripen C/D would hypothetically be relatively easy for RCAF to transition into as an interim stopgap strategy, as well would logistics probably be the most common and simplified with respect to augmenting the CF-18 force as they retire.

A lease option could at least in theory then presumably buy 5-6 years time or so in which a more prudent, strategic-based and sustainable 'Next-gen' RCAF force structure (manned/unmanned) could be evaluated and studied for deliveries starting around 2021 through say 2030, eg? (IOC starting from say around 2023-2030?). Funds otherwise required for further upgrading and SLEP of CF-18 while waiting for an hypothetical CF-35 fleet to achieve IOC could instead be allocated for noted accelerated Lease option? (as would savings from not acquiring initial CF-35 LRIP lots).

Such an interim Lease option could presumably also apply to a potentially more complex and slightly more expensive Super Hornet as part of a similar transitional recap strategy.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 05:30
by spazsinbad
CANuk LoGO I recommend (the land of the baby seals after all)? Rite?

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 05:58
by bumtish
geogen wrote:I'm curious if SAAB will offer (or RCAF would request) a proposal for a short-term 8-10 yr LEASE option eg, for an updated C/D+ Gripen variant, in addition to any separate proposal for a Gripen NG variant acquisition? A Gripen C/D would hypothetically be relatively easy for RCAF to transition into as an interim stopgap strategy, as well would logistics probably be the most common and simplified with respect to augmenting the CF-18 force as they retire.

A lease option could at least in theory then presumably buy 5-6 years time or so in which a more prudent, strategic-based and sustainable 'Next-gen' RCAF force structure (manned/unmanned) could be evaluated and studied for deliveries starting around 2021 through say 2030, eg? (IOC starting from say around 2023-2030?). Funds otherwise required for further upgrading and SLEP of CF-18 while waiting for an hypothetical CF-35 fleet to achieve IOC could instead be allocated for noted accelerated Lease option? (as would savings from not acquiring initial CF-35 LRIP lots).

Such an interim Lease option could presumably also apply to a potentially more complex and slightly more expensive Super Hornet as part of a similar transitional recap strategy.


AFAIk there are few spare Gripen C/D available, so they would have to be new-built. I would consider it unlikely that new a/c would be built for even a ten-year lease.

I also think you underestimate the cost of leasing Gripen C/D (the web meme of the cheap upgraded legacy fighter).

Take the Hungarian cost of leasing 14 Gripen C/D. Their annual lease cost is HUF 32bn ($145 mn/yr). For this they get a predetermined number of FH each year (ie. spares, vendor support, software updates, pilot training). They also own the a/c after 20 years.

What they do not get is operations cost like fuel, armaments, air/ground crew salaries, MLU hardware updates, infrastructure, other overheads.

Scaling this up (20*65/14*0.145) to a a notional 65 a/c force with a 20 year lease (after which you own the a/c) you end up paying $13.5bn for the lease alone.

F-35 was recently estimated at $45bn for 36 years of total cost of ownership.

You are close to paying the same for a light 1980/90s concept light fighter as for a medium/heavy 2000s concept fighter.

I am very curious about the RFI responses from the five fighter manufacturers!

Some sources on Hungary

http://www.bbj.hu/politics/sweden-appro ... aper_62472

http://www.bbj.hu/politics/hungary-to-e ... fmin_62205

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 06:12
by spazsinbad
How does CanUKland do this pray tell? "..."Canada is potentially the first country that could challenge the F-35," Trappier said...." Quote is from the short article below. Must be a French thing - must play well in the French Quarter of Canada. Shirley some kind of misspoke translation? Whatever. :D

Dassault sees prospects for Rafale in Canada: report (Reporting by Dominique Vidalon; Editing by Tim Dobbyn) 08 Jan 2013

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessN ... ZH20130108

"...Canadian officials said last month that the government would restart the process of searching for a new fighter for Canada's air force after soaring costs spurred a rethink of plans to buy Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35.

They said it was still possible that Ottawa would eventually decide to buy the F-35, dismissing reports Canada had decided to walk away from the jet."

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 06:34
by geogen
Bumtish,

I'd bet that relatively young new-build Gripen C/D+ airframes (perhaps add SABR?) could find a market after just 8-10 years, considering old geriatric F-16s are still finding homes today. (not to mention F-4s, A-4s and F-5s still operating).

There will likely be plenty of demand for a mix of aircraft, both high-cost/complexity and economical, even in the future. Perhaps they could even make reasonable and reliable unmanned drone conversions down the road too, if that requirement ever sees more attention, eg. So no, I don't buy the argument that Countries or Manufacturers couldn't find a market for relatively young, cost-effective fighters after a LEASE-term expires.

Cost wise? That would obviously have to part of any suggested study and evaluation as noted above. For example, when factoring in cost offsets with further CF-18 upgrades and SLEP, as well as the cost savings on not acquiring LRIP F-35 lots, eg, it might in fact come out in favor of a Leasing option.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 07:25
by bumtish
geogen wrote:Bumtish,

I'd bet that relatively young new-build Gripen C/D+ airframes (perhaps add SABR?) could find a market after just 8-10 years, considering old geriatric F-16s are still finding homes today. (not to mention F-4s, A-4s and F-5s still operating).


Such a thing as available "relatively young new-build Gripen C/D" does not exist.

South Africa intend to keep theirs.

Hun + Czech will be in excess of 20 years at end of lease and they cannot hand theirs off, lest they dispose of their fighter arm alltogether. Ditto for South Africa.

Sweden will fly theirs to c. 2025 and the rest is slated to be rebuilt to Gripen E to keep costs down on that project.

You have to buy new.

Edit: F-4 are recently retired in Germany and on the road to replacement elsewhere. IIRC they were not cheap to operate i.e. high cost/"low complexity". 4th and 5th gen are generally "low cost/high complexity", Gripen, Super Hornet, F-35. Built for ease of mx and support and sustainment. Old hat (and worn) doesn't necessarily mean cheap.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 08:52
by geogen
bumtish, I was saying that after conclusion of a hypothetical short-term 8-10 yr Gripen C/D+ Lease, RCAF could return said 'new-build' Gripen as 'relatively young, new-build' jets which Sweden/SAAB could then likely sell on the open market for remainder of service life. Maybe a Hungary, Czk or SA would even pick them up by the early/mid 20s to augment or replace attrition a/c, etc, just as a Chile or Jordan acquires well-used F-16s to augment their fleets today.

If you're suggesting that by the early to mid-20s, there will be no market for something along the lines of a relatively young, updated C/D+ airframe, I'd highly disagree with you.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 09:04
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:bumtish, I was saying that after conclusion of a hypothetical short-term 8-10 yr Gripen C/D+ Lease, RCAF could return said 'new-build' Gripen as 'relatively young, new-build' jets which Sweden/SAAB could then likely sell on the open market for remainder of service life. Maybe a Hungary, Czk or SA would even pick them up by the early/mid 20s to augment or replace attrition a/c, etc, just as a Chile or Jordan acquires well-used F-16s to augment their fleets today.

If you're suggesting that by the early to mid-20s, there will be no market for something along the lines of a relatively young, updated C/D+ airframe, I'd highly disagree with you.


The budget programming for this doesn't exist in Canada for a purchase until 2018. Really the window for procurement is around 2019 to 2022. Its not a dirty little secret, but it underpins alot of this. Changing that purchase window affects DND's own capitalization plans and the broader government budget.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 14:16
by m
geogen wrote:bumtish, I was saying that after conclusion of a hypothetical short-term 8-10 yr Gripen C/D+ Lease, RCAF could return said 'new-build' Gripen as 'relatively young, new-build' jets which Sweden/SAAB could then likely sell on the open market for remainder of service life. Maybe a Hungary, Czk or SA would even pick them up by the early/mid 20s to augment or replace attrition a/c, etc, just as a Chile or Jordan acquires well-used F-16s to augment their fleets today.

If you're suggesting that by the early to mid-20s, there will be no market for something along the lines of a relatively young, updated C/D+ airframe, I'd highly disagree with you.


Will the Gripen really be an alternative for Canada?
The Gripen C/.D version has not enough range, certainly not flying in Canada.
Test report Swiss, as well as mentioned by the Dutch (2002)


Budget Gripen E: Swiss
22 Gripens: CHF 3,126 billion ($3386 million)
Fixed price, covering the government of Sweden any cost over-run

Total cost per Gripen E: $153.9 million
Swiss Gripen E: as far as known yet > some $108 million per Gripen E (Swedish Gripens 15-30% more expensive)

Total:
Lease: 11 Gripen C/D’s (8 Gripen C / 3 Gripen D)
CHF 44 million per year > $ 47.6 million per year
Till 2021, at least 5 years > CHF 220 million = € 182.16 million = $ 240.62 million

22 Gripen E: CHF 3,126 billion > $3386 million
Lease: CH 220 million > $ 238.34
Total: CHF 3,346 million > $3,624.9 million

Total cost, including lease 11 Gripen C/D’s (5 years): $166.35 million per Gripen E


Extra costs
A. Dual seat Gripen:
No Gripen F will be developed. Too expensive and there is no money to develop.
The Swiss will have to order Gripen D’s or will have to lease these jets from Sweden.
Another option, they will use Swedish Gripen D’s (cooperation).

B. 4 Reconnaissance pods
Like for instance Rafael RecceLite reconnaissance pod as mentioned by general Markus Gyrax)
(RAFAEL of Haifa, Israel and the Dutch Ministry of Defense have signed a $40-million contract – 6 pods)

C. Pods like Litening AT pods: ?
The Swiss want to introduce this capability again


Flying cost Gripen E (Swiss)
Source: Lt Gen. Markus Gygax, commander Swiss Airforce
Article: Getting the Gripen, Airforces Montly, jan. 2012

22 Gripen E: operating cost per year, next 30 years

Per year: CHF 100 million = $108.34 million
Per Gripen E: CHF 4.54 million = $ 4.92 million per year
(180 hours: $27.333.33 per flying hour)


Switzerland will have rebuilt second-hand Gripen
Beni Gafner. Updated 09/26/2012

Quote: Estimated in the draft are the operating costs: 102 million francs per year (6 million Swiss francs for the operation of real estate included). The operating cost per hour in the template are not explicitly mentioned.
This amount, taking into account the specified annual costs for personnel (24 million), maintenance (51 million) and fuel (21 million), more so than in previous presentations Saab journalists presented.
The calculation of operating costs per hour sets the Switzerland based on a flight operating time of 180 hours per year.
At 22 Gripen, this gives cost of 24'242 francs per flight hour.
Saab announced during a presentation in Sweden at a price of less than 10,000 francs. (Basler Zeitung) Here is still a need for clarification. (Basler Zeitung)
http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl ... 2F18471087


o Gripen E’s for Switzerland, as well as for Sweden will not be brand new.
For every Gripen E a Gripen C (D) airframe will be needed to build a Gripen E

o No dual seat Gripen F will be developed (there is no money to develop a dual seat Gripen F)
Gripen D’s will be needed for training (different engine than a Gripen E?)

o Gripen E’s will not be build in Switzerland, only some personnel will work in Sweden.

o The Swedish government guarantees to pay cost overruns for Switzerland, in case the Gripen E will become more expensive.

* The Swiss will not have to pay development costs, what is quite extraordinary.


The Gripen E does not exist yet, the jet still will have to be developed
When a decision will not be made in time, Saab will loose crucial personnel for developing and production of the Gripen E.

When the first Gripen E’s will be delivered, the Gripen E will have to be tested like any other jet, with all problems like other jets did had as well (Tyhoon etc)
It will take at least some years, after delivery, before any Gripen E will be operational
The last ten years the Gripen became a very expensive jet as well, it’s hardly impossible to expect there will be no cost overruns during development of the Gripen E.

When the Swiss will not decide to order the Gripen E (referendum), Sweden as well will not order the Gripen E (2014).
A new production line will be needed. Production is only possible when at least 60 Gripen E's will be build in cooperation with another country.
Possible order Sweden: 40-60 Gripens. It's not possible to develop and build the Gripen E by Sweden itself.
In case the Swiss will not order the Gripen E, only Brazil or Canada could save the Gripen E (although it doesn't seem Brazil will order the Gripen E)

(Used rates currencies: Jan.11, 2013)

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 17:12
by geogen
hb_pencil...

Expect the unexpected in this recap game. That's all. Take all the previously unexpected revisions and restructurings to date into account. Everything previously assumed or part of the original or even still current calculus can easily be modified if determined to be in the best interests of fulfilling national strategy interests, et al.

And to m...

Thanks for that detailed reply and interesting info. Perhaps a C/D+ variant Lease however (w/ SABR, eg?) could still satisfy RCAF's range requirements if equipped with wing tanks, compared to current day legacy CF-18 range which are reportedly more than adequate for Canada's Defense requirements?

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 20:11
by bumtish
geogen,

ok, i did misunderstand you, but still disagree - you can't budget like unless you are certain to be able resell or sell back, eg. australian shornets. Also, still likely to be more expensive.

Why the SABR, when a selex aesa is already integrated at that time?!

m,

Berner Zeitung got it wrong. Only the swedish planes are certain to be rebuilds and BZ assume the swiss will be rebuilds too. in fact, if the swiss are to be rebuilds is yet unknown, but possible.

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 21:09
by m
bumtish wrote:m,

Berner Zeitung got it wrong. Only the swedish planes are certain to be rebuilds and BZ assume the swiss will be rebuilds too. in fact, if the swiss are to be rebuilds is yet unknown, but possible.


May be, can’t say for sure. Either this is what Monica Kleja writes, she is a pretty well informed Swedish author:

Quote: "Next generation JAS Gripen is a new product, including new hull, new engine, new radar, etc. For both economic and environmental reasons, some components to be
reused where the need for updating is not as great." It writes Johan Elmberg, press secretary to Defence Minister Karin Enstrom (m) in the SMS to New Technology.

He also writes that: "For every Jas Gripen E is a C / D '.

Does the data would thus 40-60 C / D aircraft from the current Swedish fleet go in for Saab to meet the proposed Swedish order.

Meanwhile, Swedish 22 C / D aircraft to be used as "spare plane" in Switzerland planned order of 22 new Gripen E.

By: Monica Kleja

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... lLE9Y0_Okg

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 21:48
by cola
m wrote:He also writes that: "For every Jas Gripen E is a C / D '.

So what does this exactly mean?

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 22:00
by gtx
luke_sandoz wrote:The F-35 is the only spending program in Canada that costs out over a 42 year period. The Canadians routinely use sole sourced contracts instead competitive tender to acquire military equipment, but somehow the analysis done by the RCAF to support the aircraft they wanted was "biased' and just an excuse to buy the "best for the boys".

Funny how the screaming, finger pointing press is saying nothing about the 42 year costs of Canada C17's, Leo 2 tanks and the new Herc J fleet - all the recent big sole sourced contracts.


Digging back a bit I know - sorry but I have been out of contact for the last month or so - but this comment is so relevant. One of the things that frustrates me most in all of these F-35 bashing articles etc is that they rarely ever compare apples with apples or apply the same standards of criticism against all programs. But i guess that would be asking too much...

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 22:13
by bumtish
cola wrote:
m wrote:He also writes that: "For every Jas Gripen E is a C / D '.

So what does this exactly mean?


I can read swedish without translation.

The article says that engine, load bearing structures, and other parts will be new, but in order to build an E, a C/D will have to be cannibalized/consumed for bits and pieces. For each E you build, you will be down one C/D. This apply to both Swedish and Swiss Gripen E.

Thanks very much for that link, m, I have been puzzled about that for some time!

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 00:14
by neurotech
bumtish wrote:
cola wrote:
m wrote:He also writes that: "For every Jas Gripen E is a C / D '.

So what does this exactly mean?


I can read swedish without translation.

The article says that engine, load bearing structures, and other parts will be new, but in order to build an E, a C/D will have to be cannibalized/consumed for bits and pieces. For each E you build, you will be down one C/D. This apply to both Swedish and Swiss Gripen E.

Thanks very much for that link, m, I have been puzzled about that for some time!

Really?? $150m+ per Gripen and they can't even build new ones?

I'm going to be a smart a## here and and ask this;
For Canadian or Swiss Air Force, assuming the F-35 is delayed past 2020 or off the table, which jet should they go for?
* Gripen C/D
* Gripen E (NG)
* Super Hornet F/A-18E/F
* Upgraded USN F/A-18As from EDA/Boneyard
* Upgraded USN F/A-18E Block I jets that get EDA'd
* F/A-50++ Golden Eagle jets
* F-16V 70 jets, either new or upgraded EDA jets.

Maybe johnwill would clarify, but I'm under the impression that the F-16 Block 30+ jets are strengthened, and would perform quite well, if restricted to A/A and "light" attack roles. Earlier F-16s were not really intended as strike aircraft with heavy ordinance on the wings. I'm talking about what would be practical, and still get a decent service life out of the jets.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 05:39
by johnwill
Block 30 did include some strengthening, following a block 25 static test failure in the wing. However an overall structural redesign was done for block 40, to catch up with all the previous weight increases and the Lantirn installation. The intent was there for early F-16 air to ground, but actual usage was more severe than designed for, usage meaning heavier weapons loading, higher speeds, higher g. Not higher than design limit, but a higher spectrum of occurrences. The original mission spectrum was 60% air to ground, 40% air to air.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 06:17
by neurotech
johnwill wrote:Block 30 did include some strengthening, following a block 25 static test failure in the wing. However an overall structural redesign was done for block 40, to catch up with all the previous weight increases and the Lantirn installation. The intent was there for early F-16 air to ground, but actual usage was more severe than designed for, usage meaning heavier weapons loading, higher speeds, higher g. Not higher than design limit, but a higher spectrum of occurrences. The original mission spectrum was 60% air to ground, 40% air to air.

Thats what I thought, except for being mistaken about Block 30 vs 40 structural changes. I don't know what the structural requirements would be for Block 70 jets are, but I thought it was pitched as an upgrade option for predominantly Block 15/20 MLU jets. Do you think if they took a Block 30 jet out of the boneyard, rebuilt it with structural upgrades to match Block 40/50 jets, could they get another 3000+ hours out of those jets, as F-16V 70s? Cheaper than a Gripen E rebuild too.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 11:40
by geogen
bumtish,

I accept that you disagree with me that something along the lines of a new-build and relatively young Gripen C/D+ airframe (enhanced and updated) will NOT have a market resell value after the early to mid-20s, but I still highly disagree with you. I'll even put a friendly wager on that...

I have to ask you though, out of pure curiosity... what would you propose as an example to be a fair market demand for a relatively young and economical advanced 2nd hand fighter by the early 2020s?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 18:26
by johnwill
neurotech wrote:
johnwill wrote:Block 30 did include some strengthening, following a block 25 static test failure in the wing. However an overall structural redesign was done for block 40, to catch up with all the previous weight increases and the Lantirn installation. The intent was there for early F-16 air to ground, but actual usage was more severe than designed for, usage meaning heavier weapons loading, higher speeds, higher g. Not higher than design limit, but a higher spectrum of occurrences. The original mission spectrum was 60% air to ground, 40% air to air.

Thats what I thought, except for being mistaken about Block 30 vs 40 structural changes. I don't know what the structural requirements would be for Block 70 jets are, but I thought it was pitched as an upgrade option for predominantly Block 15/20 MLU jets. Do you think if they took a Block 30 jet out of the boneyard, rebuilt it with structural upgrades to match Block 40/50 jets, could they get another 3000+ hours out of those jets, as F-16V 70s? Cheaper than a Gripen E rebuild too.


Block 40 was a complete redesign, not just a local strengthening, so to bring block 30 up to that standard would be a significant task. It could be done, of course, but I have no clue what it would cost or how many hours of service could be obtained.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 20:10
by XanderCrews
geogen wrote:bumtish, I was saying that after conclusion of a hypothetical short-term 8-10 yr Gripen C/D+ Lease, RCAF could return said 'new-build' Gripen as 'relatively young, new-build' jets which Sweden/SAAB could then likely sell on the open market for remainder of service life. Maybe a Hungary, Czk or SA would even pick them up by the early/mid 20s to augment or replace attrition a/c, etc, just as a Chile or Jordan acquires well-used F-16s to augment their fleets today.

If you're suggesting that by the early to mid-20s, there will be no market for something along the lines of a relatively young, updated C/D+ airframe, I'd highly disagree with you.


How many aircraft are we talking here?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 22:06
by neurotech
I got flamed earlier by a few people for suggesting that Canada negotiate to get older F/A-18Fs from the USN, upgrade them, and fly them.
That way the USN gets the new jets at a discount, to replace the old ones, and Canada gets F/A-18Fs at a discount off new price. If the F/A-18E/F purchases get extended (some sources indicate this happened in NDAA 2013, but if that actually equates to more jets, or just funding existing commitment, I'm not 100% sure). Another option would be to see if some of the Navy F/A-18Cs could be EDA'd for Canada. If the F-35B and C stays on track, and MYP 2015+ F/A-18E/F jets are purchased by the USN, then it becomes a possibility.

This is somewhat close to what happened with the F-16As, because of performance benefits of the F-16C, and political considerations, some quite serviceable jets got sent to the boneyard. Some of these jets have been sold to other countries, or leased out. A handful of F-16A/Bs have been sent to defense contractors.

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 23:24
by alloycowboy
neurotech wrote:I got flamed earlier by a few people for suggesting that Canada negotiate to get older F/A-18Fs from the USN, upgrade them, and fly them.
That way the USN gets the new jets at a discount, to replace the old ones, and Canada gets F/A-18Fs at a discount off new price. If the F/A-18E/F purchases get extended (some sources indicate this happened in NDAA 2013, but if that actually equates to more jets, or just funding existing commitment, I'm not 100% sure). Another option would be to see if some of the Navy F/A-18Cs could be EDA'd for Canada. If the F-35B and C stays on track, and MYP 2015+ F/A-18E/F jets are purchased by the USN, then it becomes a possibility.

This is somewhat close to what happened with the F-16As, because of performance benefits of the F-16C, and political considerations, some quite serviceable jets got sent to the boneyard. Some of these jets have been sold to other countries, or leased out. A handful of F-16A/Bs have been sent to defense contractors.


I am sure Canada could also get some old F-4's and Mig-21's too while were at it!

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 23:42
by llc
Canada's option review will only have one of three outcomes:

1- Select something other than the F-35, and retire the CF-18 in accordance with the expected ELE (NLT 2020)
2- Select the F-35 and it's delayed delivery dates (for a given capability) and upgrade the current CF-18 fleet to keep them relevant/capable until 2022-25
3- Select the F-35 and have it delivered on the required timeline to retire the CF-18 by 2020, and accept that the F-35 blocks that will be delivered initially will have substantial operational deficiencies until they are cycled back through the upgrade process.

There are many opinions on this forum that suggest that the F-35 is or is not the correct aircraft for Canada. The aircraft is capable, and would undoubtably suffice for what Canada uses its fighter force for, but so would the Gripen NG, the Rafale, the Super Hornet, a new-build F-15 etc etc. The issue with the F-35 is that Canada, and most other small but modern western air forces, put all of it's eggs in this basket and now due to LM's misguided belief in concurrency, and the US government's significant lack of oversight of the program progression until recently, is caught between a rock and a hard place.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 00:23
by neurotech
llc wrote:Canada's option review will only have one of three outcomes:

1- Select something other than the F-35, and retire the CF-18 in accordance with the expected ELE (NLT 2020)
2- Select the F-35 and it's delayed delivery dates (for a given capability) and upgrade the current CF-18 fleet to keep them relevant/capable until 2022-25
3- Select the F-35 and have it delivered on the required timeline to retire the CF-18 by 2020, and accept that the F-35 blocks that will be delivered initially will have substantial operational deficiencies until they are cycled back through the upgrade process.

Yes, 3 basic choices.

Do you think buying additional F/A-18A/Cs (assuming they are in better overall condition) would be a benefit to Canada?

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 02:08
by hb_pencil
llc wrote:Canada's option review will only have one of three outcomes:

1- Select something other than the F-35, and retire the CF-18 in accordance with the expected ELE (NLT 2020)
2- Select the F-35 and it's delayed delivery dates (for a given capability) and upgrade the current CF-18 fleet to keep them relevant/capable until 2022-25
3- Select the F-35 and have it delivered on the required timeline to retire the CF-18 by 2020, and accept that the F-35 blocks that will be delivered initially will have substantial operational deficiencies until they are cycled back through the upgrade process.


Actually this is fundamentally incorrect in several ways. First the options analysis is really an F-35 OR exercise. The option will be either continue with the program or run a full new competition. Really this replicates how DND undertook its analysis in 2006~2010.

Second, the F-35 delivered after 2018 should meet the KPPs. I'm not sure what "substantial operational deficiencies" you're referring to, but the aircraft will be of the block 3 standard with most of its capabilities originally envisioned included.

llc wrote:There are many opinions on this forum that suggest that the F-35 is or is not the correct aircraft for Canada. The aircraft is capable, and would undoubtably suffice for what Canada uses its fighter force for, but so would the Gripen NG, the Rafale, the Super Hornet, a new-build F-15 etc etc. The issue with the F-35 is that Canada, and most other small but modern western air forces, put all of it's eggs in this basket and now due to LM's misguided belief in concurrency, and the US government's significant lack of oversight of the program progression until recently, is caught between a rock and a hard place.



Actually Canada and other partner states are the biggest beneficiaries of concurrency and the "all in one basket" approach. It will allow the Canada to buy aircraft early on in the program's life at costs that represent the most efficient level of production. Without concurrency, Canada would need to wait until 2025 or later to reach that point... or sucked it up and paid $100+million per copy. Without a tri-service fighter, it would have probably waited until 2028, if at all.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 07:43
by pushoksti
llc wrote:Canada's option review will only have one of three outcomes:

1- Select something other than the F-35, and retire the CF-18 in accordance with the expected ELE (NLT 2020)
2- Select the F-35 and it's delayed delivery dates (for a given capability) and upgrade the current CF-18 fleet to keep them relevant/capable until 2022-25
3- Select the F-35 and have it delivered on the required timeline to retire the CF-18 by 2020, and accept that the F-35 blocks that will be delivered initially will have substantial operational deficiencies until they are cycled back through the upgrade process.

There are many opinions on this forum that suggest that the F-35 is or is not the correct aircraft for Canada. The aircraft is capable, and would undoubtably suffice for what Canada uses its fighter force for, but so would the Gripen NG, the Rafale, the Super Hornet, a new-build F-15 etc etc. The issue with the F-35 is that Canada, and most other small but modern western air forces, put all of it's eggs in this basket and now due to LM's misguided belief in concurrency, and the US government's significant lack of oversight of the program progression until recently, is caught between a rock and a hard place.


I find it hard to believe how any rational or intelligent person with a basic understanding of the industry can suggest the Gripen NG. Its going to cost more, be far less capable than the F-35 and is years if not a decade away from reaching IOC, that is IF it makes it into test flight phase. People are suggesting ludicrous and downright stupid alternatives to the F-35. This is why governments hire and listen to professionals and not some brochure-reading gamers.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 15:14
by geogen
Bottom line, a review of options will present the best possible case for RCAF/Canada in making a more prudent and strategically calculated decision going forward given the changing developments and uncertainties.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 15:19
by geogen
Hey Push -

perhaps go a little more easy on calling critics in general ludicrous and stupid in their suggestions that Canada/RCAF have made serious miscalculations and highly risky assumptions from inception RCAF's CF-18 recap strategy. Eh?

We're all here to debate and discuss the issues out in the open, critically, for the better. No need to come out with know-it-all sounding attitude and inflammatory prejudice against critics just because you disagree with them.

-----------

hb_

With all respect, probably more than anyone, you have had claimed others to have been 'fundamentally' incorrect with respect to critical assessments made on Canada's original calculations and expectations on CF-35's acquisition process. Yet even while Govt/DND/RCAF has been forced by one default or another to accept reality of continuing 'revisions' to the originally expected recap plan, you apparently refuse to admit any such miscalculation yourself and refuse to accept that ongoing or future further revisions are most likely. To have to adjust numerous times over the past 2,3,4 years alone in making 'refinements' to previous assumptions/expectations on the evolving official Canadian Plan that be, does not put you in a necessarily good position to jump on critics of said original Canadian F-35 expectations.

------------

neuro -

I don't think it should be assumed that older USN F-18C/D would be in better shape than CF-18s and thus could be bought 2nd hand by RCAF as a stopgap. Keep in mind that USN Hornets themselves are expecting or would require some form of SLEP certification and/or upgrade themselves in order to remain credible as an extended-stopgap option to delayed/uncertain F-35C acquisition. If however, Canada would decide in the end to make expensive and strategic investments in further CF-18 SLEP and further upgrade to keep the legacy fleet credible for an extended period due to recap uncertainty and delays, etc, perhaps then a dozen or two USN Hornets also requiring SLEP/upgrade could hypothetically be transferred to augment a Life extended CF-18 force structure? I'd personally doubt that scenario, but who knows. Most likely it would be a new-build CF-18E/F buy or Lease, if going with a Hornet family.

------------------

llc -

Interesting post and it's probably a fairly well assessed 3-case scenario or some variation of those 3 options at least, which Canada will end up taking. I might differ w/ your position a little though in expecting Canada to eventually receive a delayed, operational yet 'deficient' block III example, but it's probably a fair assessment to factor in a more expensive and further delayed follow-on block IV and eventual block V upgrade compared to original and current expectations... imho.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 20:05
by neurotech
geogen wrote:neuro -

I don't think it should be assumed that older USN F-18C/D would be in better shape than CF-18s and thus could be bought 2nd hand by RCAF as a stopgap. Keep in mind that USN Hornets themselves are expecting or would require some form of SLEP certification and/or upgrade themselves in order to remain credible as an extended-stopgap option to delayed/uncertain F-35C acquisition. If however, Canada would decide in the end to make expensive and strategic investments in further CF-18 SLEP and further upgrade to keep the legacy fleet credible for an extended period due to recap uncertainty and delays, etc, perhaps then a dozen or two USN Hornets also requiring SLEP/upgrade could hypothetically be transferred to augment a Life extended CF-18 force structure? I'd personally doubt that scenario, but who knows. Most likely

@Geogen: I've personally witnessed F-16s and F/A-18s pulled from the boneyard and flown successfully, safely, and relatively cheaply. One "issue" we had was how to budget for it. We sidestepped the issue by saying "We need a chase jet for x hours, usually 300-1000 hrs" and NAVAIR would approve a budget for "operations". We could get away with that for a few jets, but not for a significant number. One of those jets spent 1000+ hours at Fallon, and another was loaned to NASA when we were done with them, but I doubt they ever went back on a carrier.

In my recent reply, I was alluding that "trap life" can effect their ability to serve in the USN fleet, and its hard to justify large scale SLEP for jets which is not cleared for carrier deployment. Also, maintenance on the carrier is a factor. We could get away with some repairs in a test group, that would get deferred at best, on a carrier. This was a factor in the VFA-106 crash. Squadron "Maintenance Control" on the carrier deferred too much of the maintenance/repairs, with the loss of a jet and 4 lives on the ground.

Some USN F/A-18As were considered too costly to upgrade in the early 90s, but were later refurbished for the USMC, without insane costs or major safety risks.

Since the RCAF generally doesn't operate off carriers (and they fly USN jets on exchange when they do), "trap life" isn't a big factor. Its quite possible that adding a few more EDA/SLEP jets to the RCAF might be a benefit, in terms of reducing load on squadron maintenance staff.

@pushoksti: I remember you didn't like the suggestion of F/A-18Fs, but do you think buying EDA F/A-18A/Cs would be a benefit, from your perspective? I do believe the F-35A is the best jet for its intended role, without getting into hypothetical BS of a CF-22 Raptor or something.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 20:48
by maus92
neurotech wrote:I've personally witnessed F-16s and F/A-18s pulled from the boneyard and flown successfully, safely, and relatively cheaply.....

Some USN F/A-18As were considered too costly to upgrade in the early 90s, but were later refurbished for the USMC, without insane costs or major safety risks....


Are there any F/A-18Cs in storage? I thought only -As were stored. I do know that Spain acquired a number of "retired" -As from Arizona to bridge the gap when the Eurofighter was delayed. (Note that these jets were not used going to be used for carrier ops)

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 22:30
by neurotech
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:I've personally witnessed F-16s and F/A-18s pulled from the boneyard and flown successfully, safely, and relatively cheaply.....

Some USN F/A-18As were considered too costly to upgrade in the early 90s, but were later refurbished for the USMC, without insane costs or major safety risks....


Are there any F/A-18Cs in storage? I thought only -As were stored. I do know that Spain acquired a number of "retired" -As from Arizona to bridge the gap when the Eurofighter was delayed. (Note that these jets were not used going to be used for carrier ops)

They are not showing on the normal AMARC inventory, but there are other places they send F/A-18s than AMARC while still keeping them safe from corrosion.

From what I recall, its mainly A models. There are a few C models, with exceeded trap life limits, and few with hard landing damage. A lot of A models were sent to the boneyard before the center barrel program started. We did get a C and a D model that had fire damage in the engine bay wiring. On paper it was not a class A mishap, but it was close to the $1m cap. Its debatable how much the "damage" cost to repair, but the SLEP bill wasn't cheap (~$4m each) that included almost complete rewiring the jet, and a refurbished main fuel tanks, surprisingly the center barrels were in reasonable shape, other structural repairs were made as needed. AFAIK the jets are still with VX-31.

A recurring fuel leak with possible major electrical issues in a jet, is enough for a CAG to send a jet to the boneyard, even without a class A mishap. I would assume that the CO & CAG, decided the fallout from a jet sent to the boneyard, was minimal in comparison to a Class A mishap.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 22:33
by alloycowboy
This is just a really dumb conversation beause if you pulled a fighter out of mothballs you would have to put it through a serious upgrade and referbishment program. The upgrade program would be so expensive it would not make economic sense. You would be better off just purchasing the F-35 already.

As for the Gripen NG it appears headed for the chopping block.

Gripen NG doomed by "exit clause" ?

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-aviation/42245-gripen-ng-doomed-exit-clause.html

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 22:56
by pushoksti
alloycowboy wrote:You would be better off just purchasing the F-35 already.


Pretty much this.

There is no point in messing around with second-hand jets that will need significant upgrades and inspections just so they can fly for a few more years. Its a waste of money. Fly the CF-18s we have now and retire them once the CF-35 comes into the squadrons. Its the most logical solution.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 22:58
by XanderCrews
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:I've personally witnessed F-16s and F/A-18s pulled from the boneyard and flown successfully, safely, and relatively cheaply.....

Some USN F/A-18As were considered too costly to upgrade in the early 90s, but were later refurbished for the USMC, without insane costs or major safety risks....


Are there any F/A-18Cs in storage? I thought only -As were stored. I do know that Spain acquired a number of "retired" -As from Arizona to bridge the gap when the Eurofighter was delayed. (Note that these jets were not used going to be used for carrier ops)


Thats a good question, I know the USN gave a lot of excess F-18s to the jarheads who have them but aren't necessarily using them at all because they are rather beat up, and they have their minds on other things. The question is if they are safe and economically viable to upgrade... even then do they become a permanent solution, or does it just buy Canada 10 more years? wouldn't the Canadians just spend the money to directly upgrade the hornets they already have? If it was a permanent solution, they would be the only country still operating the older F-18 in future conflicts correct?

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 23:01
by neurotech
alloycowboy wrote:This is just a really dumb conversation beause if you pulled a fighter out of mothballs you would have to put it through a serious upgrade and referbishment program. The upgrade program would be so expensive it would not make economic sense. You would be better off just purchasing the F-35 already.

The cost of such a program would probably be < $10m a jet for refurb costs for F/A-18A/Cs. Capability upgrades, well thats anyones guess, but F-16 Block 20 MLU jets were around $20m each, from what I remember.

The above conversation is about a stop-gap until Canada can buy F-35s or whatever, at an economically, and politically suitable time.

@maus92: Just to clarify, if the RCAF got a F/A-18Cs they would most likely be jets the USN EDA after swapping for F/A-18Es. This assumes they do extend production in FY2014 or even MYP 2015+, while F-35B/C production ramps up. Sending those F/A-18Cs to the USMC is not a zero cost option, so they could still be EDA F/A-18Cs.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 23:16
by bigjku
alloycowboy wrote:This is just a really dumb conversation beause if you pulled a fighter out of mothballs you would have to put it through a serious upgrade and referbishment program. The upgrade program would be so expensive it would not make economic sense. You would be better off just purchasing the F-35 already.

As for the Gripen NG it appears headed for the chopping block.

Gripen NG doomed by "exit clause" ?

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-aviation/42245-gripen-ng-doomed-exit-clause.html


That is a pretty interesting article. I think the Gripen NG is probably in a fair amount of trouble. It is a late to the party version of Eurofighter/Rafale that runs on a US engines and really brings nothing new to the party. If it can compete anywhere it will be based almost wholly on its ability to offer industrial development assistance. But I have to think that will be limited by who the US says can have full access to its engines.

Brazil might want it, but they would want to build their own copies I think and they would fart around so long that it would likely never really fly. I just don't have any confidence in them actually making a decision and sticking with it.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 23:19
by neurotech
XanderCrews wrote:Thats a good question, I know the USN gave a lot of excess F-18s to the jarheads who have them but aren't necessarily using them at all because they are rather beat up, and they have their minds on other things. The question is if they are safe and economically viable to upgrade... even then do they become a permanent solution, or does it just buy Canada 10 more years? wouldn't the Canadians just spend the money to directly upgrade the hornets they already have? If it was a permanent solution, they would be the only country still operating the older F-18 in future conflicts correct?

As mentioned in my other reply. Sending them to "jarheads" still costs money for refurbishment, if they are going to the USMC, those funds come from a very different source than if they went to the RCAF. The USMC do use their F/A-18Cs from the Navy, but are avoiding major SLEP work so there is room in the budget for enough F-35Bs to replace the AV-8Bs and F/A-18As.

I do not know with 100% certainty what the condition of the CF-18s is, but I'd assume its a "cost" issue. They could bring more jets into operational service again, but it costs money to refurbish them.

10 years would be at the top end of this stop-gap program. The problem with the Gripen and pretty much anything but a F-35 or F/A-18E/F is that 2-3 smaller air forces can't afford the development costs a program that will probably wont crack the 100 jet mark.

@bigjku: I'm guessing Brazil will go for the F/A-18E/F Block II/III jets. As funny as it sounds, I could see Boeing offering a sweetener to get them to commit by FY2014. Buy 10+ jets this year and get 10% discount.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2013, 00:09
by XanderCrews
neurotech wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Thats a good question, I know the USN gave a lot of excess F-18s to the jarheads who have them but aren't necessarily using them at all because they are rather beat up, and they have their minds on other things. The question is if they are safe and economically viable to upgrade... even then do they become a permanent solution, or does it just buy Canada 10 more years? wouldn't the Canadians just spend the money to directly upgrade the hornets they already have? If it was a permanent solution, they would be the only country still operating the older F-18 in future conflicts correct?

As mentioned in my other reply. Sending them to "jarheads" still costs money for refurbishment, if they are going to the USMC, those funds come from a very different source than if they went to the RCAF. The USMC do use their F/A-18Cs from the Navy, but are avoiding major SLEP work so there is room in the budget for enough F-35Bs to replace the AV-8Bs and F/A-18As.

I do not know with 100% certainty what the condition of the CF-18s is, but I'd assume its a "cost" issue. They could bring more jets into operational service again, but it costs money to refurbish them.

10 years would be at the top end of this stop-gap program. The problem with the Gripen and pretty much anything but a F-35 or F/A-18E/F is that 2-3 smaller air forces can't afford the development costs a program that will probably wont crack the 100 jet mark.

@bigjku: I'm guessing Brazil will go for the F/A-18E/F Block II/III jets. As funny as it sounds, I could see Boeing offering a sweetener to get them to commit by FY2014. Buy 10+ jets this year and get 10% discount.


I was told by someone in the navy that the jarheads had been given "more hornets than they could crash in a lifetime" so maybe we are just mis communicating neurotech but we are i agreement. They have them, but they aren't doing anything with them.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2013, 01:55
by llc
hb_pencil wrote:
llc wrote:Canada's option review will only have one of three outcomes:

1- Select something other than the F-35, and retire the CF-18 in accordance with the expected ELE (NLT 2020)
2- Select the F-35 and it's delayed delivery dates (for a given capability) and upgrade the current CF-18 fleet to keep them relevant/capable until 2022-25
3- Select the F-35 and have it delivered on the required timeline to retire the CF-18 by 2020, and accept that the F-35 blocks that will be delivered initially will have substantial operational deficiencies until they are cycled back through the upgrade process.


Actually this is fundamentally incorrect in several ways. First the options analysis is really an F-35 OR exercise. The option will be either continue with the program or run a full new competition. Really this replicates how DND undertook its analysis in 2006~2010.

Second, the F-35 delivered after 2018 should meet the KPPs. I'm not sure what "substantial operational deficiencies" you're referring to, but the aircraft will be of the block 3 standard with most of its capabilities originally envisioned included.

llc wrote:There are many opinions on this forum that suggest that the F-35 is or is not the correct aircraft for Canada. The aircraft is capable, and would undoubtably suffice for what Canada uses its fighter force for, but so would the Gripen NG, the Rafale, the Super Hornet, a new-build F-15 etc etc. The issue with the F-35 is that Canada, and most other small but modern western air forces, put all of it's eggs in this basket and now due to LM's misguided belief in concurrency, and the US government's significant lack of oversight of the program progression until recently, is caught between a rock and a hard place.



Actually Canada and other partner states are the biggest beneficiaries of concurrency and the "all in one basket" approach. It will allow the Canada to buy aircraft early on in the program's life at costs that represent the most efficient level of production. Without concurrency, Canada would need to wait until 2025 or later to reach that point... or sucked it up and paid $100+million per copy. Without a tri-service fighter, it would have probably waited until 2028, if at all.


HB,
My three options are not fundamentally incorrect. The F-35 options analysis is not a F-35 or something else review, it is a review of the current Canadian program to purchase the F-35. If your "or else" option is selected, the F-35 will still be considered, as well as likely the Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter, and perhaps the Gripen NG, and the winner will be a completely new program. That does not imply that if the review does not select your "or else" option, that the current Canadian F-35 program continues unchanged.

With regards to concurrency, it is a concept primarily favouring the manufacturer by allowing it to start making money sooner. It was not implemented to facilitate the purchaser. The issues with concurrency were identified very early on in the program (almost 8 years ago) and it was only negligence or incompetence on the part of the program overseers within DOD, and the smaller participant nations, that prevented them from demanding a change or planning for contingencies. Concurrency and other development issues have contributed to close to 6 years of program delays, resulting in very expensive alternatives for countries such as Canada. The CF-18 is planned through to 2020, and unless the ELE is extended, there will be no more updating, modernization, or extension. You correctly state that Block 3 will be available to Canada starting in 2018, unfortunately that is too late to ensure complete CF-18 replacement by 2020. This is the justification for my outcomes 2 or 3 in my original post.

Push,

Careful reading of my original post will reveal that I did not recommend any of the outcomes, or any platform in particular. Your reply with character adjectives regarding the perceived recommendation of the Gripen NG is just tabloid-ish.

For the record, my personal choice as the operator is for an aircraft that can be delivered on time, within specs, at a reasonable cost, that allows us to perform the missions outlined in the Canada First defence strategy. Should the RCAF F-35 IOC dates continue to be pushed to the right due to program issues, my next best choice would be for F-18E/Fs block 3 with 414 EPE engines. This would not delay the F-35 purchase but replace it, and Canada would be required to look at it's options in the 2035 timeframe.
If this option is not chosen, then a CF-18 upgrade, perhaps 40 aircraft or so, with a AESA, modernized EW, weapons and structure. The rest would continue unmodernized, would be used solely for NORAD duties, and the remaining airframe life babied to allow the 2-standard CF-18 fleet to operate effectively to 2025. This would allow the purchase of the F-35 with all of the bugs ironed out, several block upgrades behind it, and serve Canada well as potentially its last manned fighter.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2013, 04:47
by geogen
Neuro -

Very interesting reading and insights with respect to past and existing US legacy Hornet status, thanks. But as others have also alluded (and I believe as you did as well), one could assess that any hypothetical transfer of USN F-18C to RCAF to augment their stopgap contingencies (assuming USN decides on further new-build F-18E/F acquisition options as a stopgap contingency) would still require of RCAF/DND substantial SLEP and capability upgrade budgets/investments - hence, part of the unexpected 'expensive' part of the recap equation. Such a requirement could be expected to push said hypothetical USN-adopted CF-18s beyond the 2020 timeframe and likely well into the mid-20s to maintain future operations as a credible tactical platform. Moreover, that approach arguably adds to the already risky recap policy. Important to consider too, is that according to USMC top brass reportedly, their Hornets need to be replaced 'urgently', as they too would apparently require significant, expensive and risky upgrading if life-extended. Keep pushing reliance and dependence of upgrading and Life-extending of the existing geriatric platforms 'to-the-right' too and it could potentially be a recipe for a flawed and inadequate recap strategy.

llC -

All very relevant and interesting perspectives and analysis. I'd be curious of your opinion too with respect to any hypothetical F-18E/F 'LEASE' option, say short-term 8-10 years, as a further stopgap option? Could it be a less risky alternative to relying on 'Expensive' Life-extending and upgrading of existing CF-18 force structure which would be assumed to be replaced seamlessly starting in the early 2020s and concluded by the mid to later 20s?

I concur w/ you though, that if there's a solid cost-effective replacement strategy in place to begin by say, around 2019 and concluded by 2025-2026, then the Hornet upgrade and SLEP could be justified and better risk-managed.

But what if things further slip and unexpected shortfalls in either the replacement-end or the stopgap upgrade-end further surface in the equation? At least with a 'new-build' Lease, there might be more contingency options to fall back on if a few more years time in the recap implementation are needed to be bought?

Regardless, I fully agree with you with regards to the unfortunate and tragic 'Concurrency' reality and flawed acquisition reality in staying-the-course this long without contingencies, will likely present RCAF/DND with far more expensive than ever expected replacement costs and national Defence risks.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2013, 09:55
by hb_pencil
geogen wrote:
hb_

With all respect, probably more than anyone, you have had claimed others to have been 'fundamentally' incorrect with respect to critical assessments made on Canada's original calculations and expectations on CF-35's acquisition process. Yet even while Govt/DND/RCAF has been forced by one default or another to accept reality of continuing 'revisions' to the originally expected recap plan, you apparently refuse to admit any such miscalculation yourself and refuse to accept that ongoing or future further revisions are most likely. To have to adjust numerous times over the past 2,3,4 years alone in making 'refinements' to previous assumptions/expectations on the evolving official Canadian Plan that be, does not put you in a necessarily good position to jump on critics of said original Canadian F-35 expectations.


I think the issue here is that I do have insight into what went on in the earlier iteration of the program. I also have a long view of how the Canadian procurement system operates. This isn't the first program I've examined... not by a long shop. Furthermore, you and others (except some of the Canadians) have never really looked into Canada's situation. We have unique needs and discussions.I think this has led many to use the media as your primary source of information... who have a limited and biased understanding of the issues involved.

The reason why I "refuse to admit" there is a miscalculation, is that there hasn't been one on the policy side. I ask what has changed so dramatically since 2010? The cost estimates made by the government were pretty close... There was a 10% increase in the unit prices but that was covered by the contingency (I predicted this.) However much of the "controversy" is based around extending the future costs from DND's normal practice of 20 years to 40+ years. This is a terrible decision in my view. DND has unique considerations. Predicting costs for other government capital purchases is much easier; most are either static pieces long term equipment (infrastructure) or have much shorter lives (computers, vehicles). It doesn't even make sense in accounting terms, because it extends beyond the department's amortization period.

If there was "a mistake", it was not to run a full competition. However that would of yielded the same result as the options analysis run in 2006~2008 and in 2010. Really this is an optics issue, that surrounds Politics.... not a failing of the bureaucracy or the process itself. There are plenty of "bad" Canadian military procurement programs; the Cyclone, the Chinook, and the Upholder/Victoria. However in many ways the F-35 isn't/wasn't one of those. It avoided some of the worst aspects of Canadian defence procurement by taking it out of the government's hands.

What I think grates me on this is that you claim to know better, with so little basis to do so. Your recent statement that "I should be prepared for anything" illustrates that perfectly. What is that besides a useless aphorism? Do you have some expertise or insight here that we don't know about? The secretariat has terms of reference that guide its operations. It has military and procurement advisors, which have views which are somewhat well known. The government has imposed a hard $9 billion dollar acquisitions cap (That's a huge consideration, which will eliminate everything but the F-35 and F/A-18E unless Dassault or Cassadian wants to take a huge loss). So it is possible to have a good sense of what might occur. Is it possible they might go to phase three and ask for a competitive tender? Sure, absolutely. However the terms of reference, and the previous discussions with the manufacturers does not bode well for that outcome, particularly after the KPMG report.

So there you have it. I've evaluated all the information in front of me and that is my view. I can completely see that they might chose another option. However I really don't think it will. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I don't think I will be.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2013, 11:27
by hb_pencil
llc wrote:HB,
My three options are not fundamentally incorrect. The F-35 options analysis is not a F-35 or something else review, it is a review of the current Canadian program to purchase the F-35. If your "or else" option is selected, the F-35 will still be considered, as well as likely the Super Hornet, Rafale, Eurofighter, and perhaps the Gripen NG, and the winner will be a completely new program. That does not imply that if the review does not select your "or else" option, that the current Canadian F-35 program continues unchanged.


I think we agree on this... which may have been based on a misunderstanding of your initial post. Just to clarify, the Secretariat is in a three phased approach. We're in phase two with the options analysis. This is not a tender as called for in AIT or GCRs; best example of that is that there is no MERX tender. Rather this phase will help determine Canadian government policy going forward... in phase three. To select another fighter the government will need to run a new competition.

Where I somewhat disagree with you is whether the F-35 program will be changed even if it is selected. The nature of the partnership basically limits how Canada can change its participation. Really its a question of when and how much we buy at this stage (unless we want to pay for canada-specific modifications.)


llc wrote:With regards to concurrency, it is a concept primarily favouring the manufacturer by allowing it to start making money sooner. It was not implemented to facilitate the purchaser. The issues with concurrency were identified very early on in the program (almost 8 years ago) and it was only negligence or incompetence on the part of the program overseers within DOD, and the smaller participant nations, that prevented them from demanding a change or planning for contingencies.


Several issues First concurrency is not a concept that is intended just to make money for the manufacturer... that's a really simplistic and incorrect view of things. Rather its justified based on two objectives:

First it assists the manufacturer refine the production process before committing to full production, ensuring that it can deliver efficiently once that decision occurs. Second, LRIP allows the military to obtain near production standard examples that they can begin to design their training, maintenance and operational doctrine. The process can also identify potential issues and problems overlooked by the flight test program... which is what is happening now, but it was initially not a major objective.

Concurrency was implemented for these reasons... particularly given the AF's and Navy's wish to rapidly recapitalize their fleets. However it was not the cause of the program's failings, rather it was a symptom of other problems in my view. As the GAO has suggested in several instances (and rand in their Report on Root Causes for Nunn McCurdy breaches Vol. 1 ) the program had unrealistic cost schedules and risk. The military and the contractor vastly underestimated some of the program's challenges... key among them was starting on design work with many of the enabling technologies knowledge not sufficiently developed before they started on design work. Then there were the costly redesigns (like the bomb bay size, and weight reduction efforts) that caused major issues. They also didn't have a proper prototype to work off... the demonstrator was not sufficient given the capabilities and design growth that occurred after 2001.

However most of those issues emerged well before LRIP began in 2009. By that point the program had already been pushed back. LRIP deliveries were supposed to start by 2006... they started in 2010. So the delays were already going to occur, whether or not concurrency was going to occur. Its also important to note that Congress limited the number of LRIP aircraft consistently in budget requests after 2009. The 2011 cut of LRIP aircraft really just acknowledged that the Congress wasn't going to pay for those aircraft regardless.

What Concurrency did was exacerbate the cost of the program's failings. Producing aircraft while the program is undergoing flight testing and redesign means that manufacturing learning can't occur efficiently, you're also introducing changes on the manufacturing line and that the aircraft will require retrofits going forward. I'm not saying that concurrency hasn't caused some problems of its own. Its increased demands on programmers to deliver additional software increments, diverting them from development focused tasks. However those are really secondary to other problems outlined above.


llc wrote: Concurrency and other development issues have contributed to close to 6 years of program delays, resulting in very expensive alternatives for countries such as Canada. The CF-18 is planned through to 2020, and unless the ELE is extended, there will be no more updating, modernization, or extension. You correctly state that Block 3 will be available to Canada starting in 2018, unfortunately that is too late to ensure complete CF-18 replacement by 2020. This is the justification for my outcomes 2 or 3 in my original post.


Discussing this issue with individuals more familiar with the CF-18 fleet's status than I am, going past 2020 isn't a major issue. Fleet life estimates are doing fairly well at this point, and they can further increase it by curtailing training or operational flights in some areas.

One key point however is that Canada will face an operational limitations once it decides on a replacement and goes through the process, regardless of the choice. With limited number of flight and ground crews available, our ability to maintain current operational readiness while they transition will be compromised. IT might make sense to just officially declare that the CF can't do expeditionary ops from 2018 to 2020 and plan that out. The army has done that before (2001~2002 operational "pause") and that would be an official acknowledgement for the benefit of planning in this case.

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2013, 17:20
by geogen
hb_

I sincerely appreciate that reply and your insights. Well accepted.

True, you don't know me or what I do, I and I don't know what you have done or currently hold as your position.

FWIW, I have significant Canadian heritage and distant relatives and most proud, thankful and protective of that linkage.

What differences I have with you with recap strat and defence are in the details I think. The greater interests for your camp and long term vision is on the same planet, I'm sure.

When I've ever said however, that Canadian Defence policy makers should expect the unexpectable with respect to F-35 recap expectations in general, that's not an insult, but the hard cold truth.

Your most latest comment here to me that you're apparently still expecting the F-35 to be produced under assumed FRP rates and produced in total advertised numbers after all said and done though, and expecting the presently still advertised procurement unit costs to be maintained as still apparently officially advertised, should simply not be assumed. All previous and original estimates must therefore be thrown out the window as unfortunate as it is, as well as all future-looking unit cost assumptions and expectation taken as complete best-case-scenario speculation.

Truly, if Canada demands to stay the course - politically - and refuses to adjust and adapt defensively to the rapidly changing dynamics of the situation, then there will likely be a lot more frustration, finger pointing and harsh insecurity to come, say around 2020, without DND/RCAF making the necessary strategic adjustments now.

God speed.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2013, 04:03
by spazsinbad
One for the Canadians....

Hill Times: The demonization of stealth 14 Jan 2013

http://f-35.ca/2013/hill-times-the-demo ... f-stealth/

"The following article by Paul Manson was published by The Hill Times on January 14, 2013. General (retired) Paul Manson is a former chief of the defence staff. He was manager of the New Fighter Aircraft program which led to the selection of the CF-18 and is a former president and board member of the CDA Institute.

The demonization of stealth
Although it is a complex matter, there are two basic arguments in favour of stealth, and both are significant: mission effectiveness and pilot survivability....

...In weighing the merits of stealth in the next round of the CF-18 replacement program, evaluators will have to take into account one critical reality. Were Canada to select a non-stealth replacement for the CF-18, our Air Force is at risk of becoming a pariah amongst our Allies, and for a very simple reason. Our new fighter would no longer be welcome to operate jointly with stealth-equipped Forces. Non-stealth aircraft cannot mix in with a flight of stealth aircraft in combat because even one will contaminate the force by virtue of its vulnerability to early detection, thus compromising the stealthy approach of the remaining aircraft.

It is fair to say that, in an examination of the range of likely Canadian missions and roles over the life of the CF-18 replacement, stealth will be of limited value in North American operations such as joint continental air defence through our partnership with the U.S. in NORAD, and in protecting our sovereignty in the Arctic and on our coasts. (In either case, though, stealth would allow the undetected approach to a suspected intruder, which is of operational value.) When it comes to overseas expeditionary missions conducted jointly with allied air forces, on the other hand, stealth becomes very important, for the reasons mentioned above, unless Canadians wish to see the RCAF relegated to third-rate status.

All of which is to say that, in the “re-set” round now underway, great care must be given to assessing the real importance of stealth without allowing misconceptions and distortions to colour the analysis. It is by no means the unnecessary and even sinister feature that its detractors have made it out to be. Clearly and undeniably, the F-35 has a significant advantage because of its stealth capability, and past polemics must not be allowed to distort this reality. Too much is at stake."

ONLY first / last paragraphs excerpted above. I'm on automatic pilot. :D
_____________________

Anotherie here: The Chronicle Herald: RCAF aircraft debate missing key point

http://f-35.ca/2013/the-chronicle-heral ... key-point/

"The following article by Tim Dunne was published by The Chronicle Herald on January 12, 2013. Tim Dunne retired from the Canadian Forces with 37 years service. He is a Halifax-based military affairs writer.

RCAF aircraft debate missing key point....

....To purchase an inferior aircraft, without the same stealth qualities, electronic interoperability and armament and capabilities as the F-35, the only fifth-generation fighter aircraft realistically available to Canada, would jeopardize mission success for our air force, and would reduce the potential for pilot survivability. A Super Hornet or a Eurofighter might be good enough for today’s strategic and operational demands, but we would be effectively using yesterday’s technology to meet future challenges that have yet to be even hypothesized.

The 21st century has already proven to be unkind and unpredictable, and we cannot know what threats the future holds. Whatever happens, we have learned from hard experience that it will be a “come as you are party” and we, as a nation, must anticipate this eventuality.

Our political decision-makers should also be mindful that those who oppose this purchase will never have to fly a combat aircraft into harm’s way. They will not have to defend their claims whenever Canada faces domestic or international adversity. They will not be held accountable if the Canadian Forces fail to meet their mission objectives because this nation purchased an inferior aircraft with inadequate capabilities to achieve the mission aims and provide pilot survivability."

Again on auto only begin/end paras here. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 07:40
by popcorn
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/21 ... t-secrecy/

Former top defence official defends handling of F-35 file, blames Harper government secrecy

OTTAWA – The man who for seven years oversaw billions of dollars in military contracts and purchasing is defending the way he and his Defence Department staff managed the F-35 stealth fighter program...

And he firmly believes that – Conservative government review or not –the F-35 will be Canada’s next fighter aircraft, unless politics get in the way.

“At the end of the day, the Royal Canadian Air Force will fly F-35s,” Ross says. “If we have an Air Force that flies fighters.”...

The former brigadier-general viewed his role as first and foremost making sure these soldiers had the best equipment possible – not just to succeed at their missions, but to come home from Afghanistan and other “rat-holes” in one piece as well.

“You don’t want to be slightly worse than the other guy,” Ross says of equipping soldiers for combat.

“You actually don’t want to be equal to the other guy. You want to dominate him and kill him and he never knows he’s been killed. That’s what you need to be when government asks you to go someplace that’s really hard and really dangerous.”

That, he says, meant not always settling for “lowest-price garbage.”

“If you want to buy staff cars or furniture based on price, that’s okay. Who’s going to live and die with the furniture?” he says. “If you’re buying a weapon system that our troops live and die with, that’s not acceptable.”

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 09:20
by Conan
geogen wrote:Neuro -
llC -

All very relevant and interesting perspectives and analysis. I'd be curious of your opinion too with respect to any hypothetical F-18E/F 'LEASE' option, say short-term 8-10 years, as a further stopgap option? Could it be a less risky alternative to relying on 'Expensive' Life-extending and upgrading of existing CF-18 force structure which would be assumed to be replaced seamlessly starting in the early 2020s and concluded by the mid to later 20s?


I know you've mentioned this idea many times before Geo, but I'm honestly interested in what you think it would achieve?

Yes, it delays major expenditure on a new fighter. But that's all it does. In 2023, what is going to be different to today? Canada will still need a fighter, but it's options will be much more limited.

Super Hornet will have long finished production.

Rafale will likely have long been out of production in France, though it may still be in production in India, but as it won't have export rights anyway this isn't relevant.

Gripen E may still be in production, though it's a very big "may" given the only idea they've had to sustain production on 80 odd aircraft is to produce less than 6 aircraft a year at a huge premium... New orders may boost that, but customers aren't exactly lining up to buy it at present.

Typhoon will likely be out of production, or else it's build rate will be massively slowed, like the Gripen incurring a huge premium in the process. .

F-16 will be close to being out of production, or else it's build rate will be massively slowed, like the Gripen incurring a huge premium in the process.

F-22A is out of production.

F-15 will be out of production.

The only fighter in the West currently available in full production will be the F-35, leaving Canada exactly where it is now (in need of a new fighter), except it's spent $250m+ per year for the last 10 years to sustain a leased fleet of Super Hornets, it doesn't want as a future fighter...

And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that there is no fleet of 65x Super Hornets sitting around available for lease and Boeing would be looking at a minimum of 5 years to even deliver such a fleet from scratch.

This whole scheme of course, only works if someone could be found to fund the bill for 65x Super Hornets, which will then be leased to potentially save some other Country some money and that huge bill will not be repaid any time soon...

Alternatively, can the USN shed 65x Super Hornets from it's current fleet?

I'm just not seeing a positive to this scheme. For the idea of the predicament Canada would be in at the 2023 mark, look at the Czech Republic and Hungary now.

They are the only countries that have leased a fighter to provide ALL of their air combat needs in recent years and now both are looking at other options. Each has spent hundreds of millions of dollar on this and at the end of it, have nothing to show for it...

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 15:09
by geogen
Thanks for the reply and good questions, Conan. I'll give it a shot as to some possible longer-term follow-on contingencies based off an hypothetical Strategic 8-10 yr stopgap Lease tomorrow, when I have more time.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 17:15
by neurotech
@Conan: The lead time is still as low as 2-2/12 year lead time currently, just ask the RAAF. Given the right incentives, the USN could "swap" older jets for new Block II+ jets, with a budget offset involved. This wouldn't be "just give Canada x65 jets tomorrow". They could probably spare 4 jets for initial type training. Unless all the pilots go down to VFA-106 FRS, it would take 6-12 months to establish F/A-18E/F pilot training programs for the RCAF, so lending a couple of Block I jets is possible, with more once replacements are delivered to the USN.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 17:43
by SpudmanWP
Considering that Raytheon & Boeing cannot even get the APG-79 (the most IMPORTANT sensor in a fighter) working right 6 years after the radar's IOC, I would not put too much faith in their claims of performance.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 19:26
by neurotech
SpudmanWP wrote:Considering that Raytheon & Boeing cannot even get the APG-79 (the most IMPORTANT sensor in a fighter) working right 6 years after the radar's IOC, I would not put too much faith in their claims of performance.

Care to be more specific?

Last time I checked, the APG-79 works fine, but needed some tweaking to work properly in the EA-18G, while ALQ-99s are active.

More advanced features of the F/A-18E/F(BR) Block III are still being developed, but the baseline Block II is working pretty well for the USN.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 19:33
by SpudmanWP
n/a damn posting error

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 19:34
by SpudmanWP
n/a damn posting error

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 19:36
by SpudmanWP
n/a damn posting error

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 19:45
by SpudmanWP
This is from the most recent DOT&E report (Keep in mind that the -79 has been operational for over 5 years).

Executive Summary
• The APG-79 AESA radar provides improved performance relative to the legacy APG-73 radar; however, operational testing did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mission accomplishment between F/A-18E/F aircraft equipped with AESA and those equipped with the legacy radar.
• While SCSs H6E and 23X demonstrate acceptable suitability, the AESA radar's reliability continues to suffer from software instability. The radar's failure to meet reliability requirements and poor built-in test (BIT) performance remain as shortfalls from previous test and evaluation periods.
• Overall, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet weapon system is operationally effective and suitable for most threat environments. However, the platform is not operationally effective for use in certain threat environments, the specifics of which are addressed in the DOT&E FY12 classified report

Activity
• DOT&E reported on APG-79 radar IOT&E in FY07, assessing it as not operationally effective or suitable due to significant deficiencies in tactical performance, reliability, and BIT functionality.
• The Navy conducted APG-79 radar FOT&E in FY09 in conjunction with SCS H4E SQT. The Navy's Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force subsequently reported that significant deficiencies remained for both APG-79 AESA performance and suitability; DOT&E concurred with this assessment.
• Concurrent with SQT for SCSs H6E and 23X, the Navy conducted a second APG-79 radar FOT&E period in FY11. The Navy conducted the testing in accordance with the DOT&E-approved Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) and test plan. DOT&E issued a classified report on this testing in FY12; finding that the Super Hornet made incremental improvements, but still retained important deficiencies.

Assessment
• The APG-79 AESA radar demonstrated marginal improvements since the previous FOT&E period and provides improved performance relative to the legacy APG-73 radar. However, operational testing does not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mission accomplishment between F/A-18E/F aircraft equipped with AESA and those equipped with the legacy radar.
• Full development of AESA electronic warfare capability remains deferred to later software builds

Recommendations
• Status of Previous Recommendations.
-- The Navy made minimal progress addressing FY11 F/A?18E/F recommendations. Recommendations to continue to improve APG-79 AESA reliability and BIT functionality, to conduct an operationally representative end-to-end missile shot to demonstrate APG-79 radar and current SCS ability to support multi-AIM-120 engagement, and to develop and characterize the APG-79 AESA's full electronic warfare capability remain valid.
-- The Navy satisfactorily addressed three of seven FY11 EA-18G recommendations. Recommendations to improve aircraft maintainability and BIT software maturity, to improve ALQ-218 and ALQ-99 maintenance documentation and diagnostic tools, and to assess the need for a more capable threat range at Whidbey Island, Washington, remain valid.


This from a radar that is 6 years after IOC.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2 ... fa18ef.pdf

I would not call that "working pretty well" if it's no better than the APG-73 MSA.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 23:04
by neurotech
@SpudmanWP: Basically the translation is that "give us more $$ for more software upgrades and flight testing". I've never seen an OT&E report that didn't have a few "issues" outstanding. As for "mission accomplishment", I think that is slightly misleading. OT&E reports tend to focus on service internals, and MTBF, and skipping over how long it takes for required servicing. APG-73 radar wasn't exactly unreliable, so saying the APG-79 is not significantly more reliable isn't accurate. APG-73 did require some "routine" maintenance to the array, that isn't needed by the APG-79.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 23:33
by SpudmanWP
There is a spec and it has not met it 6 years after IOC.

How is that that hard to understand?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2013, 04:07
by llc
Discussing this issue with individuals more familiar with the CF-18 fleet's status than I am, going past 2020 isn't a major issue. Fleet life estimates are doing fairly well at this point, and they can further increase it by curtailing training or operational flights in some areas.

One key point however is that Canada will face an operational limitations once it decides on a replacement and goes through the process, regardless of the choice. With limited number of flight and ground crews available, our ability to maintain current operational readiness while they transition will be compromised. IT might make sense to just officially declare that the CF can't do expeditionary ops from 2018 to 2020 and plan that out. The army has done that before (2001~2002 operational "pause") and that would be an official acknowledgement for the benefit of planning in this case.


HB,

Thank you for your comments on my post. I think you and I disagree on the pitfalls of concurrency. With regards to the state of the CF-18 in the 2018 - 2020 timeframe and your recommendation that the RCAF limit expeditionary deployments, or minimize training or flying, I offer the following: The CF-18 will be severely limited in capability unless it is updated, not deploying will not be a choice, it'll be a necessity. The fighter force will not be able to further reduce training over a two year period, this would dramatically strain a force which is struggling to maintain capability, proficiency and experience. I don't see any easy options.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2013, 04:25
by maus92
neurotech wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Considering that Raytheon & Boeing cannot even get the APG-79 (the most IMPORTANT sensor in a fighter) working right 6 years after the radar's IOC, I would not put too much faith in their claims of performance.

Care to be more specific?

Last time I checked, the APG-79 works fine, but needed some tweaking to work properly in the EA-18G, while ALQ-99s are active.

More advanced features of the F/A-18E/F(BR) Block III are still being developed, but the baseline Block II is working pretty well for the USN.


They have been refining the software incrementally, but still have some software issues that continue to be deferred - (probably requiring some hardware upgrades - $$.) The radar works well enough. Its SAR imagery is phenomenal.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2013, 05:35
by geogen
That's interesting reporting on the status of the APG-79 set's development, Spud, thanks.

It would definitely seem as if the many times common practice with respect to the Services and DoD in general, is to often drag along slower than originally anticipated, vis-a-vis achieving such 'incremental' upgrade Program maturity and achieving the envisioned higher-capability operational maturity, etc.

Perhaps the 'urgency' to sufficiently upgrade (and eg, to sufficiently fund), innovate and to achieve such capability upgrade maturity is indeed not up to par and should/could thus be adjusted appropriately as part of a wider Defense acquisition and modernization strategy reform.

Perhaps too, there are at times some true technical and schedule issues involved in the equation (eg, waiting for new hardware to support new software capabilities, etc) whereas the actual Program's impetus to update and upgrade is present and in holding.

The critical need for constant and robust innovation at the existing systems upgrade level will of course always be key and imperative, and not just reserved as a priority for some new major league game-changing platform Program acquisition.

That said, it will be interesting to hear eventual reports of the status and evaluations of F-18E/F/G's next-gen Type IV computer upgrade Program eg, (being integrated on FY13 SH procurement orders(?), FY14 F-18E/F/G(?)) as well as the next-gen software update effectiveness, which are reportedly sought for the Super Hornet's next-gen weapon system capabilities.

It's probably a fair guesstimate though (hopefully), to say that by the time a mature block III F-35 achieving IOC rolls around, for example, that there will be next-gen weapon system, fusion and EW-enhanced capabilities operating more effectively on an F-18E/F/G block level upgrade, than currently on the Super Hornet fleet.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2013, 18:44
by spazsinbad
Looks like a BLOG series worth reading when available (first post not about F-35 but will be).

Replacing the CF18: Part I – The F/A-18E Super Hornet By Richard Shimooka CDA Institute on Thursday, 17 January 2013

http://cda-cdai.ca/cdai/en/blog/entry/r ... per-hornet

"The replacement of the Canadian military’s fleet of CF-18 fighter aircraft is not only one of the key issues facing the Canadian Forces, but a decision that will shape Canada’s military and defence policy for years to come.

Over the coming weeks, the CDA Institute will be posting to this blog a series of commentaries written by Richard Shimooka, which will provide his perspective on the issues at stake with each of the major contenders to replace the CF-18.

We start this series with a discussion on the F/A-18E Super Hornet...."

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2013, 18:58
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:Looks like a BLOG series worth reading when available (first post not about F-35 but will be).

Replacing the CF18: Part I – The F/A-18E Super Hornet By Richard Shimooka CDA Institute on Thursday, 17 January 2013
..
We start this series with a discussion on the F/A-18E Super Hornet...."

The Super Hornet could be made operationally stealthy with LO weapons pods/tanks or CFT/CWBs. The RCS of a clean F/A-18E/F is quite definitely in the LO range, but not quite F-35 level. Current LO pylons are operational, but the stores to go on them are not LO by any means.

Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 12:31
by weasel1962
F-18s cost the RAAF $3.1b for 24 (2007 prices). That translates into $8.4b for 65. However $9b is too much? $9b at todays prices is under 1.5% inflation of 2007 price. The RAAF also went for the -F variant which requires 2 crew (rather than 1 for the F-35). Wouldn't that like increase the cost far more? From a capability gap standpoint, it makes sense for the RAAF to procure F-18s in the interim.

Just wondering what the Canadian media (and Government) is thinking.

RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 12:58
by spazsinbad
Why are not other costs included as per?

Australia Buying 24 Super Hornets As Interim Gap-Fillers Dec 26, 2012 by Defense Industry Daily staff

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... jsf-02898/

"Australia’s Super Hornet purchase began life in a storm. Australia’s involvement in the F-35 Lightning II program has been mired in controversy, amid criticisms that the F-35A will (1) be unable to compete with proliferating SU-30 family fighters in the region, (2) lack the range or response time that Australia requires, and (3) be both late and very expensive during early production years. The accelerated retirement of Australia’s 22 long-range F-111s in 2010 sharpened the timing debate, by creating a serious gap between the F-111's retirement and the F-35's likely arrival.

In December 2006, therefore, The Australian [newspaper] reported that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson was discussing an A$ 3 billion (about $2.36 billion) purchase of 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft to fill the fighter gap. The move came as “a surprise to senior defence officials on Russell Hill”; but quickly became an official purchase as requests and contracts were hurriedly submitted. Australia’s new Labor government later decided to keep the Super Hornet purchase, rather than pay cancellation fees, but added an interesting option to convert 12 into electronic warfare planes. Ministerial statements place the program’s final figure at A$ 6.6 – 7.0 billion, which includes basing, training, and other ancillary costs...."

Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 17:05
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:Why are not other costs included as per?

Australia Buying 24 Super Hornets As Interim Gap-Fillers Dec 26, 2012 by Defense Industry Daily staff

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... jsf-02898/

"Australia’s Super Hornet purchase began life in a storm. Australia’s involvement in the F-35 Lightning II program has been mired in controversy, amid criticisms that the F-35A will (1) be unable to compete with proliferating SU-30 family fighters in the region, (2) lack the range or response time that Australia requires, and (3) be both late and very expensive during early production years. The accelerated retirement of Australia’s 22 long-range F-111s in 2010 sharpened the timing debate, by creating a serious gap between the F-111's retirement and the F-35's likely arrival.

In December 2006, therefore, The Australian [newspaper] reported that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson was discussing an A$ 3 billion (about $2.36 billion) purchase of 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft to fill the fighter gap. The move came as “a surprise to senior defence officials on Russell Hill”; but quickly became an official purchase as requests and contracts were hurriedly submitted. Australia’s new Labor government later decided to keep the Super Hornet purchase, rather than pay cancellation fees, but added an interesting option to convert 12 into electronic warfare planes. Ministerial statements place the program’s final figure at A$ 6.6 – 7.0 billion, which includes basing, training, and other ancillary costs...."


So A$275M - A$291M per SH... enlightening,considering they would likely have factored in any potential savings in support infrastructure for their existing Classic Hornet fleet.

Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 20:00
by neurotech
popcorn wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Why are not other costs included as per?

Australia Buying 24 Super Hornets As Interim Gap-Fillers Dec 26, 2012 by Defense Industry Daily staff

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... jsf-02898/

"Australia’s Super Hornet purchase began life in a storm. Australia’s involvement in the F-35 Lightning II program has been mired in controversy, amid criticisms that the F-35A will (1) be unable to compete with proliferating SU-30 family fighters in the region, (2) lack the range or response time that Australia requires, and (3) be both late and very expensive during early production years. The accelerated retirement of Australia’s 22 long-range F-111s in 2010 sharpened the timing debate, by creating a serious gap between the F-111's retirement and the F-35's likely arrival.

In December 2006, therefore, The Australian [newspaper] reported that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson was discussing an A$ 3 billion (about $2.36 billion) purchase of 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft to fill the fighter gap. The move came as “a surprise to senior defence officials on Russell Hill”; but quickly became an official purchase as requests and contracts were hurriedly submitted. Australia’s new Labor government later decided to keep the Super Hornet purchase, rather than pay cancellation fees, but added an interesting option to convert 12 into electronic warfare planes. Ministerial statements place the program’s final figure at A$ 6.6 – 7.0 billion, which includes basing, training, and other ancillary costs...."


So A$275M - A$291M per SH... enlightening,considering they would likely have factored in any potential savings in support infrastructure for their existing Classic Hornet fleet.

Your being misleading. The USN Don't publicly state how much each EA-18G costs "fully loaded" but its not exactly cheap. The F/A-18F "baseline" aircraft cost the RAAF ~$100m each, including FMS costs. The New EA-18Gs cost the Navy about $100m, so factor in upgrade costs of $20-25m per EA-18. This doesn't include GFE such as ALQ-99s.

The $6.6bn figure is the cost of buying the 24 F/A-18F, converting 12 to G standard, AND here is the expesive part, the ALQ-99s with current modules. Additionally there is specialized ground support equipment (computer based) for ALQ-99 mission programming.

Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 20:03
by maus92
neurotech wrote:
popcorn wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Why are not other costs included as per?

Australia Buying 24 Super Hornets As Interim Gap-Fillers Dec 26, 2012 by Defense Industry Daily staff

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... jsf-02898/

"Australia’s Super Hornet purchase began life in a storm. Australia’s involvement in the F-35 Lightning II program has been mired in controversy, amid criticisms that the F-35A will (1) be unable to compete with proliferating SU-30 family fighters in the region, (2) lack the range or response time that Australia requires, and (3) be both late and very expensive during early production years. The accelerated retirement of Australia’s 22 long-range F-111s in 2010 sharpened the timing debate, by creating a serious gap between the F-111's retirement and the F-35's likely arrival.

In December 2006, therefore, The Australian [newspaper] reported that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson was discussing an A$ 3 billion (about $2.36 billion) purchase of 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft to fill the fighter gap. The move came as “a surprise to senior defence officials on Russell Hill”; but quickly became an official purchase as requests and contracts were hurriedly submitted. Australia’s new Labor government later decided to keep the Super Hornet purchase, rather than pay cancellation fees, but added an interesting option to convert 12 into electronic warfare planes. Ministerial statements place the program’s final figure at A$ 6.6 – 7.0 billion, which includes basing, training, and other ancillary costs...."


So A$275M - A$291M per SH... enlightening,considering they would likely have factored in any potential savings in support infrastructure for their existing Classic Hornet fleet.

Your being misleading. The USN Don't publicly state how much each EA-18G costs "fully loaded" but its not exactly cheap. The F/A-18F "baseline" aircraft cost the RAAF ~$100m each, including FMS costs. The New EA-18Gs cost the Navy about $100m, so factor in upgrade costs of $20-25m per EA-18. This doesn't include GFE such as ALQ-99s.

The $6.6bn figure is the cost of buying the 24 F/A-18F, converting 12 to G standard, AND here is the expesive part, the ALQ-99s with current modules.


And training, facilities, simulators ....

RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 21:05
by spazsinbad
'neurotech' thinks: "...The $6.6bn figure is the cost of buying the 24 F/A-18F, converting 12 to G standard, AND here is the expesive part, the ALQ-99s with current modules..." NOT TRUE. The wiring only to G standard for 12 only came later.

[ADDITION] Then later still all the bits and bobs for the Growlers were bought for a lot extra. We seem to have to outline these same points over and over on this forum. Sure the RAAF are obscure but puhleese.

Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 21:14
by neurotech
maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:
popcorn wrote:
So A$275M - A$291M per SH... enlightening,considering they would likely have factored in any potential savings in support infrastructure for their existing Classic Hornet fleet.

Your being misleading. The USN Don't publicly state how much each EA-18G costs "fully loaded" but its not exactly cheap. The F/A-18F "baseline" aircraft cost the RAAF ~$100m each, including FMS costs. The New EA-18Gs cost the Navy about $100m, so factor in upgrade costs of $20-25m per EA-18. This doesn't include GFE such as ALQ-99s.

The $6.6bn figure is the cost of buying the 24 F/A-18F, converting 12 to G standard, AND here is the expesive part, the ALQ-99s with current modules.


And training, facilities, simulators ....

Affirmative. The EA-18G is not a "kick-the-tires-and-fly" jet. Mission planning is much more rigorous than for F/A-18E/F crews. Simply put, they brief based on the type of threats they'll encounter, and what that range is, and where they need to be. This goes into extreme technical details. Conventional strike packages make use of satellite/wide-area imaging etc. ELINT from satellites and other aircraft is much less advanced or available. Those EA-18Gs WSO/EWOs don't have it easy.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 21:30
by neurotech
spazsinbad wrote:'neurotech' thinks: "...The $6.6bn figure is the cost of buying the 24 F/A-18F, converting 12 to G standard, AND here is the expesive part, the ALQ-99s with current modules..." NOT TRUE. The wiring only to G standard for 12 only came later.

How do you figure that? Or are you saying the $6.6Bn doesn't include the original cost of the 24 jets. I didn't expressly state that it was the second batch of F/A-18Fs that have the extra wiring for G conversion.

The "G wiring" was done on the production line. The cost of 24 F/A-18Fs is quoted at US$2.36bn or ~$100m each, all inclusive. That is not the cost of a converted EA-18G.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... jsf-02898/
In December 2006, therefore, The Australian reported that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson was discussing an A$ 3 billion (about $2.36 billion) purchase of 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft to fill the fighter gap. The move came as “a surprise to senior defence officials on Russell Hill”; but quickly became an official purchase as requests and contracts were hurriedly submitted. Australia’s new Labor government’s later decided to keep the Super Hornet purchase, rather than pay cancellation fees, but added an interesting option to convert 12 into electronic warfare planes. Ministerial statements place the program’s final figure at A$ 6.6 – 7.0 billion, which includes basing, training, and other ancillary costs.

Same page.
Sept 23/10 Boeing announces that the 1st RAAF F/A-18F Super Hornet with EA-18 pre-wiring has completed production. That fighter took its first test flight on Aug 12/10. Boeing is pre-wiring the RAAF’s second lot of 12 Super Hornets for potential electronic attack capability conversion, giving them a new capability dimension while eliminating high retrofit costs later.

RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 21:33
by spazsinbad
Here is a good official timeline for Shornet/Growler etc.

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/Newsitems ... bility.cfm

"6 August 2012
Minister for Defence Stephen Smith and Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare has announced that the Government had decided to acquire the Growler electronic warfare system for the Super Hornet, at a cost of around $1.5 billion.

In acquiring this capability, Australia will be the only country in the world, other than the United States, operating Growler aircraft....

...In May 2009, the Government announced its decision to wire 12 of 24 Super Hornets for potential conversion to the Growler configuration. This occurred at a cost of $35 million.

In March this year, the Government announced that in addition to the decision to wire 12 Super Hornets for potential conversion to Growler, the Government would spend nearly $20 million to purchase long lead item electronic equipment for the Growler.


The decision to purchase this equipment was made to ensure that Australia continued to have access to the Growler technology should a decision be made to acquire it.

The May 2012 Budget included a capacity to acquire Growler, and it was included in the Public Defence Capability Plan released in July this year.

The Government has now made the decision to acquire the Growler electronic warfare system for the Super Hornet.

The Growlers will be available for operations from 2018.

The purchase of this equipment is being made through the United States Foreign Military Sales process.

The total capital cost estimate for this project is around $1.5 billion. This includes funding to acquire the Growler conversion kits, supporting equipment and systems, spares and training and initial training systems."
_______________

All the news that fits here:

Australia Buying 24 Super Hornets As Interim Gap-Fillers Dec 26, 2012

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aus ... jsf-02898/

"...In December 2006, therefore, The Australian reported that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson was discussing an A$ 3 billion (about $2.36 billion) purchase of 24 F/A-18F Block II Super Hornet aircraft to fill the fighter gap. The move came as “a surprise to senior defence officials on Russell Hill”; but quickly became an official purchase as requests and contracts were hurriedly submitted. Australia’s new Labor government later decided to keep the Super Hornet purchase, rather than pay cancellation fees, but added an interesting option to convert 12 into electronic warfare planes. Ministerial statements place the program’s final figure at A$ 6.6 – 7.0 billion, which includes basing, training, and other ancillary costs...."

I think this last sentence is misleading - only really referring to the initial buy of 24 Shornets plus all the support etc. Later as we see from the first thread post above all the extra costs for the Growlers become evident.

RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:17
by spazsinbad
One for the money - two for the show - three to get ready and....

Nothing 'stealthy' about the F-22 21 Feb 2007

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/21FEB.pdf (17Kb)

DR CARLO Kopp's "Nelson tries stealth to win jet fighter debate" (Opinion, 20/2/2007) is misleading in a number of areas.

Defence analysis shows that the F-22 is not the right aircraft for Australia 's air combat needs. The F-22 is without doubt a highly capable fighter aircraft, but we need a truly multi-role aircraft able to conduct the full range of air-to-ground as well as air-to-air combat missions.

Defence never has made a formal request to acquire the F-22. Nor have we ever asked US officials to start a process to lift the Congressional ban on selling the F-22. It is hardly unusual that the US should decide that some of its military technology is not for export, and hence the F-22 remains prohibited from export by US Congressional legislation.

The recent letter from the US Deputy Secretary of Defence regarding the non-availability of the F-22 was in response to a letter from the Minister for Defence, Dr Nelson, advising of Australia's intended participation in the next phase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program — already an example of successful alliance co-operation. The Government has not yet made a final decision to acquire the JSF and will continue to assess its options ahead of a decision in 2008.

Air Vice-Marshal John Harvey, Program Manager, New Air Combat Capability Project, Department of Defence, Canberra"

RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:21
by neurotech
@Spazsinbad: What I am disagreeing with popcorn's claim that a F/A-18F costs A$275m each, they do not. They are ~$100m each. A converted EA-18G, is not a F/A-18F.
IF Australia buys additional Super Hornets (F/A-18Fs) they'll most likely cost ~$100m.

I'm not disputing that the total is A$6.6m when everything is included, I just don't like when misleading figures to make XYZ aircraft appear insanely expensive compared to ZYZ fighter solution. A$1.5Bn costs directly related to the conversion seems believable. "The total capital cost estimate for this project is around $1.5 billion. This includes funding to acquire the Growler conversion kits, supporting equipment and systems, spares and training and initial training systems."

RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 22:59
by spazsinbad
'neurotech' fair enough. Things do get confused easily. I think the figure for any MORE potential RAAF Supers has been bandied about already in the media. I do not pay much attention I must admit. We can afford it whatever it is (despite Defence Budget cutbacks).

RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 23:40
by spazsinbad
Have been looking for the estimated purchase price of $1.5 Bil for another 24 Supers on top of the 24 the RAAF have already. This report is from early 2011 where again the $6.1 Billion is touted for overall expenditure for the first 24....

Air force eyes 18 more Super Hornets as delays dog our new fighter by: EXCLUSIVE Brendan Nicholson, Defence editor From: The Australian April 11, 2011

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6036923907

"DEVELOPMENT of the revolutionary Joint Strike Fighter, intended to provide Australia's air defence through this century, is running well behind schedule and the RAAF may need to buy 18 more Super Hornets for $1.5 billion to fill the gap....

...The Howard government bought 24 Super Hornets for $6bn in 2007 to fill an earlier strategic gap left when the RAAF's F-111 bombers were withdrawn ahead of time because of concerns about fatigue.

Defence officials are preparing for the government a range of options to fill this looming gap in air defences with the most likely being the purchase of a further 18 Super Hornets for about $800 million each. [I reckon an extra 'nought' somehow got into that 800 instead of only 80.]

That would make economic sense, because the $6bn purchase price for the first 24 Super Hornets included the infrastructure to support them and that can be used for the additional aircraft...."

RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2013, 23:46
by spazsinbad
Also relevant to CANADA...

Australia’s air combat capability – the next step? 19 Dec 2012 By Andrew Davies

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/super- ... apability/

"...There is one significant difference in the situations that Australia and Canada face. Australia has already bitten the bullet and bought 24 Super Hornets—which achieved Final Operating Capability last week. That means that a lot of the fixed costs that come with a new type—the training and support packages, simulator, maintenance facilities etc—have already been incurred. To give an idea of how the costs work, the first 24 Super Hornets came at a total cost of $6.1 billion. Of that, well under half was for the aircraft themselves (called the ‘flyaway cost’). My estimate is that we paid about $2.5 billion in flyaway costs (based on US Navy prices), another $1.7 billion for all of the spares and support equipment, and the rest on running costs for the first decade of their lives.

The ‘sticker price’ for Super Hornets is currently running at about $83 million each, or just on $2 billion for 24. Any further tranche would still come with additional costs above that. It’s hard to estimate how much—perhaps an extra $500 million to $1 billion. But they wouldn’t cost as much as if we were starting from scratch. Canada, however, has no such ‘natural’ fallback option—any other type it acquired would come at the full acquisition cost. If things go as planned, the F-35 won’t cost much more than its competitors. That’s why some Canadian commentators are predicting that the F-35 will still be the preferred option after the ‘reset’ process runs its course.

Of course, any decision to buy more Super Hornets won’t be made solely on the grounds of cost. The government will be anxious to avoid any gap in capability, as was the Howard government in 2006 when it made the initial decision to buy Super Hornets to replace the F-111 when it retired. But the financial circumstances then and now are very different. The Howard government had relatively little trouble finding the money for the first 24. The current government has no such luxury, and will be looking at the bottom line carefully...."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2013, 00:10
by popcorn
neurotech wrote:@Spazsinbad: What I am disagreeing with popcorn's claim that a F/A-18F costs A$275m each, they do not. They are ~$100m each. A converted EA-18G, is not a F/A-18F.
IF Australia buys additional Super Hornets (F/A-18Fs) they'll most likely cost ~$100m.

I'm not disputing that the total is A$6.6m when everything is included, I just don't like when misleading figures to make XYZ aircraft appear insanely expensive compared to ZYZ fighter solution. A$1.5Bn costs directly related to the conversion seems believable. "The total capital cost estimate for this project is around $1.5 billion. This includes funding to acquire the Growler conversion kits, supporting equipment and systems, spares and training and initial training systems."


Good,that you are not disputing the A$6.6B program cost,which is what I am focusing on and which F-35 critics like to highlight whenever they want to put the program,down. Total program cost divided by 24 units.. what's misleading about that? Just goes to show how easy it is to sensationalize the cost of any program without providing context to suit any agenda one wishes. Anyway, it got the reaction I was expecting.
Growler obviously costs more than a F, I wasn't claiming otherwise, was I? Simple division.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2013, 00:59
by popcorn
neurotech wrote:@Spazsinbad: What I am disagreeing with popcorn's claim that a F/A-18F costs A$275m each, they do not. They are ~$100m each. A converted EA-18G, is not a F/A-18F.
IF Australia buys additional Super Hornets (F/A-18Fs) they'll most likely cost ~$100m.

I'm not disputing that the total is A$6.6m when everything is included, I just don't like when misleading figures to make XYZ aircraft appear insanely expensive compared to ZYZ fighter solution. A$1.5Bn costs directly related to the conversion seems believable. "The total capital cost estimate for this project is around $1.5 billion. This includes funding to acquire the Growler conversion kits, supporting equipment and systems, spares and training and initial training systems."


Good,that you are not disputing the A$6.6B program cost,which is what I am focusing on and which F-35 critics like to highlight whenever they want to pt the program,down. Total program cost divided by 24 units.. what's misleading about that?
Yes a Growler obviously costs more than a F, I wasn't claiming otherwise, was I? Simple division.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2013, 01:28
by spazsinbad
And for comparison to the Shornet cost per airframe/engines/avionics? included here is the recent OzGovmnt Audit Estimate:

Management of Australia’s Air Combat Capability—F-35A Joint Strike Fighter Acquisition June 2012

http://www.anao.gov.au/Publications/Aud ... t-brochure

"...41. As at June 2012, the JSF Program Office estimated the Unit Recurring Flyaway (URF) cost of a CTOL F-35A aircraft for Fiscal Year 2012 to be US$131.4 million. That cost includes the baseline aircraft configuration, including airframe, engine and avionics. The URF cost is estimated to reduce to US$127.3 million in 2013, and to US$83.4 million in 2019. These expected price reductions take into account economies of scale resulting from increasing production volumes, as well as the effects of inflation. The estimates indicate that, after 2019, inflation will increase the URF cost of each F-35A by about US$2 million per year. However, these estimates remain dependent upon expected orders from the United States and other nations, as well as the delivery of expected benefits of continuing Will-Cost/Should-Cost management by the US Department of Defense...."

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2013, 01:33
by neurotech
popcorn wrote:
neurotech wrote:@Spazsinbad: What I am disagreeing with popcorn's claim that a F/A-18F costs A$275m each, they do not. They are ~$100m each. A converted EA-18G, is not a F/A-18F.
IF Australia buys additional Super Hornets (F/A-18Fs) they'll most likely cost ~$100m.

I'm not disputing that the total is A$6.6m when everything is included, I just don't like when misleading figures to make XYZ aircraft appear insanely expensive compared to ZYZ fighter solution. A$1.5Bn costs directly related to the conversion seems believable. "The total capital cost estimate for this project is around $1.5 billion. This includes funding to acquire the Growler conversion kits, supporting equipment and systems, spares and training and initial training systems."


Good,that you are not disputing the A$6.6B program cost,which is what I am focusing on and which F-35 critics like to highlight whenever they want to put the program,down. Total program cost divided by 24 units.. what's misleading about that? Just goes to show how easy it is to sensationalize the cost of any program without providing context to suit any agenda one wishes. Anyway, it got the reaction I was expecting.
Growler obviously costs more than a F, I wasn't claiming otherwise, was I? Simple division.

At risk of being a smart a**, IMO initial costs (acquisition, initial spares, initial training) isn't the driving factor between F/A-18F and the F-35. Schedule and availability is the main factors towards acquiring F/A-18Fs. I could understand why the RAAF might prefer to buy their F-35s in a later lot to save on the unit cost, but that doesn't increase the related program support costs. They'll still need the parts, the training facilities, and all that.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2013, 15:06
by Conan
neurotech wrote:@Spazsinbad: What I am disagreeing with popcorn's claim that a F/A-18F costs A$275m each, they do not. They are ~$100m each. A converted EA-18G, is not a F/A-18F.
IF Australia buys additional Super Hornets (F/A-18Fs) they'll most likely cost ~$100m.

I'm not disputing that the total is A$6.6m when everything is included, I just don't like when misleading figures to make XYZ aircraft appear insanely expensive compared to ZYZ fighter solution. A$1.5Bn costs directly related to the conversion seems believable. "The total capital cost estimate for this project is around $1.5 billion. This includes funding to acquire the Growler conversion kits, supporting equipment and systems, spares and training and initial training systems."


The original budget was AUD$6.6b for the full operational capability, upgrades and in-service support, infrastructure, training assets and so on for 13 years of operations at a set flying rate.

Our subsequent "brilliant" Defence Ministers have managed to "find" $300m in "savings" from this budget outlay however (in the usual manner, ie: reduced flying hours and weapons stocks).

The most accurate figure is therefore AUD$6.3b...

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2013, 19:50
by spazsinbad
Thanks 'Conan' whilst any Growler conversions/addons equipment costs can be added to this new total of 6.3 billion Oz dorrar.

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2013, 01:41
by hb_pencil
llc wrote: With regards to the state of the CF-18 in the 2018 - 2020 timeframe and your recommendation that the RCAF limit expeditionary deployments, or minimize training or flying, I offer the following: The CF-18 will be severely limited in capability unless it is updated, not deploying will not be a choice, it'll be a necessity. The fighter force will not be able to further reduce training over a two year period, this would dramatically strain a force which is struggling to maintain capability, proficiency and experience. I don't see any easy options.


Sorry, I should clarify this statement. The problem with the CF-18 isn't its airframe life or its capability. Basically its a very good F/A-18C equivalent, and that should be sufficient military capability to carry out most operations for at least the next decade. Because of the structural maintenance process, we can fly the CF-18's life for quite some time after 2020, both in terms of its useful military capability and its actual ability to fly. That is the view of the air staff based on their operational analysis.

The problem is with crews. We don't have a large reserve of maitnenence or aircrews and when we switch over there will be a significant issue with training individuals to operate the new aircraft. That's going to be an issue regardless of what fighter we chose.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2013, 01:48
by Conan
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks 'Conan' whilst any Growler conversions/addons equipment costs can be added to this new total of 6.3 billion Oz dorrar.


Indeed, the pre-conversion wiring was $30m and a long lead item purchase was $52m or so, whether those figures are included in the $1.5b DSCA announcement or not is the question...

RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2013, 09:17
by spazsinbad
double post - this board can be the pits sometimes. If unusual characters such as long or short hyphens from another character map are inserted then the board has a fit of Error Messages and funnyhaha hyphens. Eventually it seems to catch up with itself but only after I have posted the message twice. Whatever. BahHumBug.

RE: Re: Alternative

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2013, 09:23
by spazsinbad
The first in a series is on page 34 of this thread: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... oka#242006 here is another part:

Aerial Refueling, Northern Defence and the F-35 By Richard Shimooka 06 Feb 2013

http://cda-cdai.ca/cdai/en/blog/entry/i ... d-the-f-35

"...Transitioning towards the boom system will increase the Canadian Forces’ flexibility. It would allow Canada to refuel all its aircraft, including the CC-177 transport, which is currently not possible with the Polaris. Moreover booms would enhance interoperability with allies, particularly the United States. The challenges of utilizing an incompatible system can be witnessed in the RCAF’s day-to-day operations. To support Canadian CF-18s on a NORAD mission, USAF KC-135s must be reequipped with a drogue basket and crewed with qualified personnel. Unfortunately, the latter is not always available, because only a few crews are capable of undertaking probe and drogue refueling compared to the nominal boom system. This can limit the RCAF’s ability to respond to threats against Canadian and American sovereignty. Looking forward, boom systems will become the most commonly used system among our non-US allies, in large part due to foreign sales of the F-35. Standardizing our refueling system with them will facilitate our ability to operate in a joint fashion, and enhance Canada’s security both at home and abroad."

Only concluding paragraph excerpt above. Many details about CanUk refuelling I had not seen before in this post. Go read it.